Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xurizuri (talk | contribs) at 05:33, 21 October 2021 (→Merger proposal: close discussion - result was no merge.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gender article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gender. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gender at the Reference desk.

	Gender was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 12, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 7, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Template:WP1.0

Template:WikiEd banner shell

Citation Suggested

The rise of criticism against the WID approach led to the emergence of a new theory, that of Women and Development (WAD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Muyoyeta, Lucy (2004). Women, Gender and Development (PDF). Zambia: Women for Change. ISBN 095351367X.

Citation suggested

In contemporary times, most literature and institutions that are concerned with women's role in development incorporate a GAD perspective, with the United Nations taking the lead of mainstreaming the GAD approach through its system and development policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

1. United Nations. Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues, & Advancement of Women (2002). Gender Mainstreaming an Overview (PDF). New York: United Nations Publications.

Text within a Biology textbook

I am holding a Biology textbook by Robert A Wallace (The World of Life) that states verbatim: "If a Y-bearing sperm reaches the egg first and fertilizes it, the offspring will be XY, and thus male. If an X-bearing sperm fertilizes the egg, the offspring will be XX, a female. This is how gender is determined in many animals including mammals." Stating that genetics does not determine a mammal's gender is a farce. -Rob 07:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is mostly about the sociology of gender. You can discuss this at sex if you are interested.CycoMa (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Rob, presumably you are looking at page 192 of the 1992 Harper Collins edition. This book first came out in 1975 when in some contexts, the words sex and gender were used interchangeably, but that was almost half a century ago. Even 1992 is three decades away; modern biology textbooks would rarely conflate the terms in this way. In any case, as CycoMa said, that's not what *this* article is about. If you want to know more about the union of male and female gametes in sexual reproduction, that's already well-covered at the sexual reproduction article, and at sex. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I assure you, nothing has changed, Biologically speaking, in the last 50 or so years. "Typically in mammals, the gender of an organism is determined by the sex chromosomes." https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Sex-Chromosome The only thing that has changed is the amount of misinformed people perpetuating that gender is somehow not a part of Biology. -Rob 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That bit is casually written, speaking of what is "interesting", and is probably for educational purposes. Because the English language word (sex) for biological sex as a trait is the same as a word for sexual intercourse, people will commonly use "gender" interchangeably with it in casual contexts and because the two align in the vast majority of people. However, we don't do that here. Per WP:Due weight, it is sex that is being spoken of there. Crossroads 19:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ll just say this, regarding the issue of the distriction between sex and gender is mainly a sociological thing. There are still some biology text books that would use the two interchangeable without knowing they aren’t the same thing.

But still this article is mainly a sociology article, so this article is primarily discussing the sociological view on the topic.CycoMa (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that gender should be defined as a set of traits associated with a particular sex, whether it be physical psychological, etc.

I would also go on to state that all chromosomes carry genes that cause an organism to develop traits. An organism will have lots of autosomal chromosomes that do not determine sex, but still carry genes... and along with those genes come traits. There are also chromosomes that carry genes that determine sex. These "sex chromosomes" also carry genes that cause traits just like autosomes. The sex chromosomes literally define the traits associated with a particular organism's sex - ie: its gender. as well as determine the sex itself.

There is far too much psychological "gender identity" bleeding into the "gender" article, and not enough genetics talk, imho. -Rob 05:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Should biological sex be in the lead?

I’m not entirely sure biological sex should be in the lead. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.

Two of the sources cited in that sentence are pretty old. Also there are many sources showing that scholars from various fields in academia agree that gender and sex are clearly not the same thing.CycoMa (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

While they can be and are distinguished in much research, it is also true that for the vast majority of people, their gender and sex are the same, and "gender" as a word is often used casually as a polite way of saying "sex", due to the latter's ambiguity in English with sexual intercourse. Crossroads 03:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It should be. "Gender" has multiple definitions, including "sex." The article talks about things that have to do with biological sex. Nowearskirts (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Stable version?

Discuss? OK. This is "the stable version"? It's a brand new version, and it conflates sex and gender by calling "male" and "female" genders. They're sometimes called genders, of course, but, for one thing, you have a "distinguish" tag telling people to distinguish biological sex from gender. So distinguish, but also call "male" and "female" genders? If you want, I guess. Telling people "Most cultures use a gender binary, having two genders: male (boys/men) and female (girls/women)" is no different than saying "male" and "female" are states fashioned by society. Really, "male" and "female" just exist. What it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman is fashioned on top of that. That's the gender binary. The distinguish tag shouldn't be there, and someone else also wondered about that. How can you say "Not to be confused with Biological sex.", and then say "Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity." and have sections in the page about biological sex? If you want, I guess. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not actually the biggest fan of the "stable" version of the article, but imposing false dichotomies on it would not be a plausible path to improve it, IMO. To start at the end of your comment, I understand the lede as listing biological sex as being among those characteristics that constitute (social) gender, as in attributes used to construct it. Not only is this true, it is sourced in the article, and this does not mean that sex is "confused" with gender.

Second, the sources used in this article do not support your preference for using "male" and "female" for sex and "man" and "woman" for gender. In fact, the source cited for the sentence you altered actually uses "male" and "female" for gender. So your argument that Really, "male" and "female" just exist is essentially POV on your part; to be reflected in this article, even as an organizing principle, you would need to show that this is both reliably sourced and DUE; a BOLD, ILIKEIT edit certainly doesn't show either. Newimpartial (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

For you to say "'male' and 'female' just exist" is essentially POV on my part (and with all the discussion above us) is contradicted by sources in the article. I also think we've read different sources about the gender binary and what it is, because the sources for that topic are usually about the social construction of "boy" and "girl" and "man" and "woman" and roles expected of them. They aren't usually about the idea of sex being socially constructed. The distinguish tag doesn't help when the lead gives biological sex as a definition for gender and the article includes biological components as partly forming gender. I don't think the new "male (boys/men) and female (girls/women)" addition is helpful either. The status quo is better, but do what you want. I'm not invested. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and I shouldn't have to plop down a pile of sources to show that per WP:DUE, male and female are typically terms used for sexes. It certainly isn't the status quo or stable version. And yes, if male and female didn't 'just exist', it would be quite baffling indeed that organisms manage to reproduce at all. Crossroads 04:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As any philosophical realist would, I accept that for understanding biological reproduction, "male and female just exist". But this isn't an article about biological reproduction, it is an article on gender, and the reliable sources on gender generally do not say either that male and female "just exist", and they do say that male and female are terms for gender as well as sex. So that is the DUE balance of sources to be reflected in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, I realize that my edit summary referring to the "stable version" was misleading - I was thinking of the "distinguish" template when I wrote that. For the usage of "male" and "female", I should have referred to the source cited (as I now have). Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial. The idea that 'male' and 'female' refer to gender also falls in the bucket of "I shouldn't have to plop down a pile of sources". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Plopping down a pile of sources? I don't mind.

Hey, Crossroads, since Newimpartial said that all you need is a different source to remove the sex and gender conflation on a page that has a distinguish tag telling people not to confuse biological sex with gender, but then goes on to say "gender" may mean "biological sex", and then uses the sex categories "male" and "female" as gender categories, and then talks about the sex and gender distinction, here are a few relatively recent sources for you:

• Life-Span Human Development -- "We have learned that society sends powerful messages about how boys and girls should act to fit into the binary categories of boy–girl and man–woman to which most societies adhere." And the good thing about this source is that it actually includes "boy" and "girl" along with "man" and "woman." Perfect fit for the disputed lead sentence. It also gets into what I was saying about gender/gender roles being fashioned on top of sex: "In a world where they are presented with limited options -- act like a boy if assigned as male at birth or act like a girl if assigned as female at birth -- children who have transgender feelings may feel quite baffled. They are often bullied for being different or not conforming to societal norms."
• The Psychology of Sex and Gender -- The sex and gender binaries refer to overarching social systems that conceptualize sex (male or female) and gender (masculine or feminine) as consisting of two opposite, nonoverlapping categories. Most—though not all—human societies and cultures operate under the framework of the sex binary, in large part because this binary tends to simplify social interactions, organize labor divisions, and maintain order in social institutions." It later says that the gender binary "is the conceptualization of gender as consisting of two opposite and nonoverlapping categories, such as masculine or feminine", and that the sex binary "is the conceptualization of sex as consisting of two opposite and nonoverlapping categories, such as male or female."
• Psychopathology: Foundations for a Contemporary Understanding -- "The term gender, as used in this chapter, describes the socially constructed attributes, expectations, and norms that a particular culture uses to identify and categorize each individual as a woman, a man, or member of another gender category." "Since contemporary US society still largely operates from the assumption that there are two exclusive sexes (male and female) and two corresponding gender categories (man and woman), the so-called 'binary' view of gender has become widely adopted as 'common sense' in US culture (Hyde et al., 2019). In fact, most (but certainly not all) cultures across the world have operated from a binary conception of gender, and most cultures have also expected each individual to adopt the culture role and appearance associated with the sex they were assigned at birth (Beek et al., 2016)." Now, how this source feels about the gender binary can be inferred from its tone, but it still separates "sexes" and "gender categories." And it does it again when it says "This inherent and personal sense of being a girl/woman, a boy/man, or another gender (e.g., transgender, gender nonconforming, gender neutral) is known as a person's gender identity" and that gender dysphoria "is a diagnostic term which refers to the persistent discomfort or distress which can result when the sex category an individual was assigned to at birth does not match up that individual's deeply felt experience of their own gender (World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines v. 7, 2011)."
• Exploring Gender at Work: Multiple Perspectives -- "Historically, most societies have operated from a gender binary—man and woman. Fortunately, in some cultures we have moved beyond the binary, and people can identify as men, women, neither, both, and more."
• Social Psychology Australian & New Zealand Edition -- "The two most commonly recognised gender identities are boys (men) and girls (women) – thinking of gender in this manner is referred to as gender binary." It defines the gender binary as "A person who identifies as either a boy or a girl, regardless of the sex they were assigned at birth." It says the gender binary "is a system of culturally and socially constructed ideas and expectations used to classify contrasting genders (males who identify as men and females who identify as women) and qualities (masculine and feminine) in terms of socially accepted behavioral norms."
• Sociology of Sexualities -- "Most languages rely on binary gendered pronouns to define people as either man or woman, feminine or masculine, boy or girl." It has a focus on language, but it's still talking about the gender binary.

That should help. The distinguish tag should still be removed. Its presence is hardly the stable version either. The gender page and the sex and gender distinction page tell people that "sex" and "gender" aren't very easily or always distinguished. But this article has a "distinguish them tag" anyway. Talk about a way to confuse readers. Everyone knows that "male" and "female" are also used as gender categories and there's reliable sources for this (although sociologists today still distinguish), but that doesn't mean the page shouldn't try to avoid confusing readers with a contradictory outline. Now, I mean it when I say I'm not invested in this dispute, but since the challenge of sources was invoked, I didn't see why I shouldn't list a few. Do what you want with them, or not. Nowearskirts (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Nowearskirts, are you trying to assert that "male" and "female" are terms for sex, not gender, and that using those terms for gender is somehow "confusing" sex with gender? Because if you aren't, then I don't understand why you're trying to remove "male" and "female" from the text. In fact, I don't see the article text confusing sex with gender at all.

Also, are there any sources suggesting that sex and gender are not, or should not be distinguished? If there are, I'd like to see them and if not, then why the objection to the tag? We don't put a distinguish tag between things that are obviously completely different, but rather for relationships that people do actually find challenging. Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, hi again. I don't think I was asserting anything that the sex and gender distinction page doesn't assert, or the distinguish tag didn't assert. I think the sources I plopped down show my meaning. I looked at the gender page's outline on sex and gender as certain to confuse some people because sex and gender are often conflated and the terms for sex and gender categories are often used interchangeably, but the page had a distinguish tag telling people not to confuse biological sex with gender while it also acknowledges that "gender" may refer to biological sex, used the sex categories "male" and "female" as gender categories, and also talks about the sex and gender distinction. That's not a presentation unlikely to confuse. You asked me if I'm trying to assert that "male" and "female" are terms for sex, not gender, but I said, "Everyone knows that 'male' and 'female' are also used as gender categories and there's reliable sources for this (although sociologists today still distinguish), but that doesn't mean the page shouldn't try to avoid confusing readers with a contradictory outline." Telling people not to confuse biological sex with gender, but then defining gender as also meaning biological sex in a sense and using sex categories as gender categories is contradictory and confusing. You asked if there are sources suggesting that sex and gender are not distinguished, but sources on the gender page and sex and gender distinction page include sources saying they often aren't distinguished. Many (and I think we can say most) people don't distinguish, but some (such as sociologists) do. And a good way to not confuse is to be consistent when explaining a topic. Because many don't distinguish and people's sex usually aligns with their gender, I actually think it's non-neutral for the sex and gender distinction page to say, "A person's sex is distinct from their gender." But that's something to bring up another day. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the crux of the issue is your claim that in this article sex and gender are often conflated and the terms for sex and gender categories are often used interchangeably. I see both of these claims as false, but for different reasons. I don't see sex and gender "conflated" or confused at all in this article, and have previously explained the relationship between the two that the article presupposes (which is not one of "conflation").

As far as the "terms for sex and gender categories" being used interchangeably, I don't understand what you mean. "Female" and "woman" (and "male" and "man") are all, according to the mass of recent, reliable sources, terms for both gender and sex. When context does not specify, the terms "female sex" or "female gender", etc., are required to give us these "terms for sex and gender categories", because English simply does not otherwise provide them. Newimpartial (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

So...I looked at this talking point and this talking point at the sex and gender distinction talk page, and now I know that you agree with the sex and gender distinction. Good. So do I. I was under the impression that you are against it and this is why you objected to the statement that "male and female just exist" and were opposed to removing the sex and gender conflation. And it is a conflation when subscribing to the sex and gender distinction outlook. Some sources listed there in a discussion are of that outlook. In that discussion, you say "sources that say, essentially, that there is a distinction between sex and gender, but that other sources ignore or misuse that distinction." So you think the sources there aren't saying that sex and gender are conflated? I observe sources in that discussion even using the words confused and confusion. I don't think I need to plop down sources also saying "often conflated", especially when sources like Social Problems: Sociology in Action essentially do that for me. I'm trying to work out how you are for the distinction but insist on using sex and gender categories to mean the same thing or interchangeably. A huge component of the sex and gender distinction is using sex categories for sex and gender categories for gender and to distinguish in language, as to not confuse. This is repeated in different sections in the sex and gender distinction page.

With all these talking points, and The Psychology of Sex and Gender source in my pile separating sex and gender by speaking of sex categories and gender categories, and the Psychopathology: Foundations for a Contemporary Understanding source in my pile speaking of "two corresponding gender categories", you say "As far as the 'terms for sex and gender categories' being used interchangeably, I don't understand what you mean." So, OK, I don't know what more to say about that. There'll be times when using sex and gender categories interchangeably is fine, but I don't think this was one of those times. I didn't say that sex and gender are often conflated and the terms for sex and gender categories are often used interchangeably in this article. I said they were conflated and used interchangeably in this article. The word often wasn't about this article, but rather about what's generally the case. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I have inserted a couple of these and tweaked the text per WP:DUE. I didn't cite all of these per WP:REFBOMB, but my statement of DUE is based on all of them. Crossroads 22:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. Also, as just something to throw out there, the source I included about sociologists today still distinguishing (Social Problems: Sociology in Action) says what we were saying about male and female just existing, but perhaps more eloquently: "Gender is a socially constructed concept that we learn through socialization within a specific culture. Gender is not something we innately are (like our sex) but something that we do." Of course, this depends on how the term gender is used. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to note some irony here. There is nothing in this quoted passage with which I disagree. There is also nothing in this passage that would weigh against the "distinguish" template, or against using "male" and "female" to designate gender (which many, many reliable sources, including those used in the lede, evidently do - there is nothing at all unusual or confusing about it). Newimpartial (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That's disagreement. Not irony. Sources in two discussions you were involved in at the sex and gender distinction talk page use words like confuse and confusion when talking about sex and gender being conflated or sex and gender terms being used interchangeably. My outlook is still that "a good way to not confuse is to be consistent when explaining a topic." Consistent here means using sex and gender categories in a consistent way when introducing the topic in the lead and not telling people not to confuse sex and gender with a tag when sex can also mean gender. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it marvelous how sex "is distinct" from gender, and yet can also be completely identical with it, and additionally can be a sub-category of it? Tewdar (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Neither this article nor its sources state that sex is either completely identical to gender nor a sub-category thereof. Hyperbole, much? Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

That is *exactly* what this article states. Sex, in this article, is distinct from, and the same as, and a subcategory of, gender. You don't need to read very much of it to see this, either. Tewdar (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure? I don't the article stating anywhere that sex is the same as gender - saying that certain authors don't distinguish them is non-identical to stating that they are the same. Also, I don't see anywhere in the article any kind of semantic hierarchy that would make sex a subcategory of gender. So, again, are you sure? Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not get someone else to take a look? Tewdar (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what the locus of this dispute is anymore. If it helps, I don't believe the article states (nor should it) that sex=gender or that sex is a subcat of gender. The article does have to contend with varying definitions of the two, with some definitions equating the two. We should continue to attribute the differing definitions to groups/cultures/disciplines/sciences that hold or promote them, and we shouldn't privilege one over the others without reasoning based on WP:DUE. If this is still about the "distinguish" tag, I support inclusion. Some readers may come here but actually want to read about Sex. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem, is that some definitions / descriptions state that sex and gender are 100% distinct and have *no* relationship, others that they are 100% distinct with some relationship, others that they are somewhat distinct with some overlap, some that they are pretty much used as synonyms, and others that sex is included within gender. And one of those definitions is indeed "privileged" here, both on this page and related articles, with no room for nuance, even when the article itself does not support it entirely. Tewdar (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis of the differing definitions—the differences do indeed make writing this article problematic. I also agree that one definition of gender is given more room in this and other articles; I believe rightly so, based on how common that definition is in the best sources. I am happy to talk more about that, but I want to refocus on the goal of this discussion. What are we proposing to change/add/remove? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind one definition being given *more room*, quite the opposite. What I mind, is an article that says, basically, "it is 100% statement of fact, with no room for dispute, that biological sex is distinct from gender. Now, here are some people for whom sex and gender are synonyms. Oh, and these folks over here state that sex is a subcategory of gender". Tewdar (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Which is exactly what this page does. Tewdar (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I still don't see anywhere in the article or its sources where sex is a subcategory of gender. Where are you detecting that?

As far as usage as synonyms, this is obviously common as a causal usage, and the article also does a reasonable job of depicting the vagaries of sex and gender as labels in health sciences literature. What I don't see is any incompatibility between recognizing this informal/sloppy usage, and privileging the more formal - and more generally agreed-upon - definitions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not "privileged". It's exclusionary. And inaccurate. Tewdar (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex" Tewdar (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If we accept that "gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity", then obviously biological sex is a subset of this. Sounds reasonable to me. Tewdar (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Recognizing that Gender is the range of characteristics... differentiating between ... femininity and masculinity and that these characteristics may include biological sex does not make sex a subcategory of gender, in any sense I can understand. But at this level of detail, I do see a problem with Gender is the range of characteristics, which was arrived at to resolve a 2012 edit war, as best I can discern. I have attempted a BOLD improvement to the lead sentences. Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote alternatives

I am swayed by arguments that the distinguish tag overstates the certainty and universality of the sex-gender distinction. I do still feel that readers will benefit from a hatnote directing them to Sex. Could we compromise one a custom hatnote? Or do others feel that no hatnote is necessary? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Overstates the certainty and universality of the sex-gender distinction" - please, I beg you, for the love of Perkwunos, go to the Sex and Gender Distinction page and fix it, NewImpartial guards it like Cerberus... Tewdar (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with you on NewImpartial's conduct. Could we maybe roll this back and start fresh on the content issue at hand? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what I am really referring to is the first sentence, which is "A person's sex is distinct from their gender", and any attempt to add nuance is insta-reverted. But, I'm happy to discuss something else. Tewdar (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please don't insta-revert my attempt to add nuance to this article, then. Thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Too late :(. (And no, that was not a joke; it was an improvement. FFS.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

And in case people need a formal reason for the change, the problems with the first two sentences are (1) they are not supported by the rest of the article and (2) they represent WP:SYNTH - I have looked at a lot of definitions of gender today, and the "range of characteristics" definitions all exclude sex from the characteristics listed, while the definitions that do refer to "sex" use other formulations (like the one I just proposed). Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You didn't "add nuance", you changed the lede so that it no longer reflected the article or the discussion that is literally ongoing on this page right now. Tewdar (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it is the old lede that didn't reflect the arricle; please see my immediately preceding comment. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial says the first two sentences are not supported by the rest of the article and they represent WP:SYNTH, but then, below us in a section about the first sentence, Newimpartial makes suggestions that amount to WP:Original research.

Of course, the first sentence reflects many parts of the article.

On further consideration of the hatnote, "sex" is introduced and linked in the first paragraph. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Mixing third genders and non-binary

The lead says this Most cultures use a gender binary, having two genders: male (boys/men) and female (girls/women); those who exist outside these groups fall under the umbrella term non-binary. Yes I’m aware that there are indeed cultures that have a third gender or more genders.

But the term non-binary is a recent concept and the term non-binary isn’t even really used for third genders. Like Māhū and Two-spirit are classified as third genders. But they aren’t non-binary genders. Also Non-binary is mostly a western concept in itself.CycoMa (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps adding "may" as in "may fall under..." will fix this. Thus both sorts of non-man non-woman genders are mentioned and neither are treated as all-encompassing. Crossroads 18:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads about "may". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Here’s the thing the social sciences have known that there are cultures that have more than two genders for a long time. Also cultures that had third genders or more used them for different reasons, like in some cases these third genders were used for religious reasons, others used them as prostitutes. And some cultures that knew about other genders didn’t even accept them.

While the term non-binary was created by activists, and non-binary is mainly a term used for individuals who self identify as such. But third gender isn’t really an identity case.

It just seems like third genders and non-binary identities aren’t the same thing. Not to mention it feels like we are combining our modern and western views on foreign and ancient cultures.CycoMa (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't engage with most of that. Do you feel there's more to be changed besides introducing "may" in your quoted line? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

My point is that things like Two-spirit are classified as third genders but, saying they are non-binary genders is probably misleading.CycoMa (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the Non-binary and third genders section covers that distinction fairly well, and I think Crossroads' tweak to the lead will help resolve the earlier ambiguity. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh I saw the change now. Yeah that fixes the problem.CycoMa (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not difficult to find reliable sources that include "third gender" under "non-binary." But the non-binary thing of today is definitely a fairly recent and almost exclusively western phenomenon. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I am aware third gender and non-binary do indeed have some connections. However, they differ in cultural contexts.CycoMa (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentences

For reference: Newimpartial's proposed opening sentences, as seen in this edit, are:

Gender is the range of identities, roles, and forms of expression that define and represent femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, such characteristics as biological sex, social structures (e.g., hierarchical gender roles), gender identities and forms of gender presentation are used to demarcate and define gender categories.

The previous version:

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we need a new section for this. Pinging Newimpartial and Tewdar. Tewdar, can you lay out your objections to Newimpartial's edit? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe start with my case "for":

And in case people need a formal reason for the change, the problems with the first two sentences are (1) they are not supported by the rest of the article and (2) they represent WP:SYNTH - I have looked at a lot of definitions of gender today, and the "range of characteristics" definitions all exclude sex from the characteristics listed, while the definitions that do refer to "sex" use other formulations (like the one I just proposed).

Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It lost clarity. I would support adding "hierarchical" to "gender roles", and adding "gender presentation". There was a lot of unnecessary waffle ("range of identities, roles, and forms of expression", "used to demarcate and define") which I don't think are useful in the intro. Tewdar (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and take out biological sex if you want. Tewdar (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Whaddabout "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, social structures (e.g., hierarchical gender roles), gender identities and forms of gender presentation." Tewdar (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Compared to the old lead, my edit was a beacon of clarity IMO. Maybe pretend someone besides me had written it, and read it again? It isn't just a matter if removing sex as though it were irrelevant (it isn't; the current lead just obscures the most prevalent relationship unnecessarily). Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

My problem with the "gender is the range of characteristics" formulation runs a bit deeper, you see. I know some sources - especially pre-2010 sources - use it, but simply describing gender passively as a bundle of given characteristics just doesn't reflect what recent, reliable scholarship has to say about gender. You may not like define and represent, but some such active verbs come considerably closer to what gender actually does. 19:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if you didn't write it, it still has too much waffle. I'll buy it if you replace "identities, roles, and forms of expression" with something a little more snappy. Tewdar (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to invoke (without direct repetition) the key concepts of gender identity, gender roles and gender expression that are then elaborated somewhat in the next, more complicated and even less snappy, sentence. Can you think of a cleaner way to do that? Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, did you rely on any particular up-to-date sources for your definition? I'd love to contribute tweaks and proposals, but I want to make sure I'm not straying too far from the pros. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to go to the shop. How about, "Gender is the range of characteristics and behaviours, such as blah blah blah, that define and represent femininity and masculinity and are used to demarcate and define gender categories in specific contexts."? Tewdar (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd still like to keep characteristics out of the first sentence if possible. Maybe "Gender defines the identities, roles and behaviours associated with masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, gender categories are demarcated using such characteristics as biological sex, social structures (e.g., hierarchical gender roles), gender identities and forms of gender presentation." Better? Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Counter-offer: "Gender is the range of identities, roles, and behaviours, such as biological sex, social structures, gender identities, and forms of gender presentation, which define and represent femininity and masculinity, and which are used, depending on context, to demarcate and define gender categories."? Tewdar (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how that would work; for one thing, biological sex is not an "identity, role or behaviour". Maybe someone else could weigh in? Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"attributes, identities, roles, and behaviours,"? Tewdar (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

That just reinscribes the original problem, IMO; the best sources don't define "gender" as having "attributes" like "biological sex", and for good reason. Perhaps someone else should weigh in, here. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Gender refers to the range of identities, roles and behaviours associated with masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, gender categories are defined using such characteristics as biological sex, social structures, gender identities and forms of gender presentation."? Tewdar (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd buy that, with the appropriate wikilinks added. Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't *want* to buy it, but it might be the best deal going... good night! :-) Tewdar (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• I see no need for any changes. And I am quite surprised to see such far-reaching changes being proposed with not a source in sight. I also don't like tying "roles" and "behaviors" in so definitively with what gender is. Before it was sometimes the meaning, this includes it always. Is everyone who considers themselves a woman endorsing the patriarchal gender roles imposed on women? I think not. I also expect that definitions vary by academic field and especially by theoretical perspective. Crossroads 22:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll pull together the relevant sources when I have time, but it seems obvious to me that the range of identities, roles and behaviours associated with masculinity and femininity includes ones that are mutually contradictory, ones that can be chosen or completely rejected by individuals, and ones that are personally negotiated or "constructed" from the ground up. Gender isn't only the things we like or choose about gender- that's actually the problem with definitions that flatten out the concept too much in terms of identities, rather than roles and structures, IMO. And this article currently does a much better job of dealing with the messy reality than the vacuous lead sentences do. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence should be sourced. Newimpartial mentioned WP:SYNTH in the stable version section, but using our own formulations that aren't found in sources is the very definition of WP:Original research. Here are sources for the previous first sentence, although I think some copying Misplaced Pages and putting their on flavor on it is involved:

• Gender in Learning and Teaching: Feminist Dialogues Across International Boundaries -- "First, gender signifies a range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between masculinity and femininity."
• Critical Perspectives on Gender and Student Leadership: New Directions for Student Leadership, Number 154 -- "...range of mental or behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between and across, masculinity and femininity" (West & Zimmerman, p. 126).
• Oxford Textbook of Migrant Psychiatry -- "Gender is generally conceived as a set of characteristics or traits that are associated with a certain biological sex (male or female). It is a range of characteristics that pertains to masculinity or femininity."
• Comprehensive Men's Mental Health -- "Gender therefore can be seen as the range of characteristics pertaining to and differentiating between levels of masculinity and femininity."
• Through the Gender Lens: A Century of Social and Political Development in Nigeria -- "The term 'gender' can be defined as the range of characteristics pertaining to the cultural differentiation between masculinity and femininity (World Health Organization, 2015)."
• Trauma-Sensitive Mindfulness: Practices for Safe and Transformative Healing -- "Gender describes the range of characteristics pertaining to—and differentiating between—masculinity and femininity, including nonbinary gender identities (e.g., people may identify as a man, women, both, neither, or something entirely different)."

The sources range across different disciplines, but it's what I could find. Editors need to choose which are the most appropriate for the first sentence, but the definition's range shows it's not limited to one discipline. Sexting: Gender and Teens focuses on sexting and undisputedly copied Misplaced Pages for the gender definition, so we should exclude it.

Newimpartial didn't answer Firefangledfeathers's question about sources. I've located no sources for Newimpartial's or Tewdar's formulations. I've located no sources for the suggestion that the second sentence should say "Depending on the context, gender categories are defined using such characteristics as biological sex, social structures, gender identities and forms of gender presentation." It's also worth noting that the idea to use "refers to" or "defines" is against WP:ISATERMFOR, which WP:REFERS also delineates as an issue. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah; I am not going to participate further in this discussion. If the new editor is going to engage in a word-by-word defense of the 2012 SYNTH version - and I have already explained what was novel about that, above: it took "biological sex"(apparently from the Oxford source) and shoehorned it into the "range of characteristics" formulations that were apparently popular at that time - I am not prepared to engage with such deep levels of OWNership. You win. Newimpartial (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The mention of "2012" is a point in favor of the text if anything. That means it holds a great deal of WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and the WP:ONUS is very much on the proponents of changing it. Crossroads 04:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the SYNTH, though. I thought you were supposed to care about that sort of thing. Newimpartial (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

So are you, but you also wrote up an entirely new definition without sources. You mentioned an Oxford source, but the only such source was just listed by Nowearskirts. Did you check the 3 already being cited for that claim? In your claims of SYNTH you never specified if you checked those that I noticed. Crossroads 05:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe I read all the cited sources, and I saw none that included "biological sex" in a "range of characteristics" definition of gender. There were sources that referred to sex, but they didn't define gender as a range of characteristics; there were range of characteristics sources, but they were all social. I wrote up an entirely new definition as a summary of what this article says in toto, based on its sources. The lede itself need not be sourced so long as it accurately summarizes sourced content. But anyway, I'm not pursuing my suggestion until I feel that it might be productive to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, please delete the WP:ASPERSIONS from your comment in the last sentence. You know what they said about this at the other page. Done, thanks.

I'll look up some sources too and see what I find. Crossroads 05:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Do gender roles include behaviours?

I believe this was actually a question on my GCSE sociology exam...

Levesque, 2011 "Encyclopedia of adolescence 2622-3"

Gender role: "a repertoire of emotions, attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions that are commonly associated more with one sex than with the other" Tewdar (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Zucker (1995). "Gender identity disorder and psychosexual problems in children and adolescents" p. 3. "behaviours, attitudes and personality traits that a society, in a given culture and historical period, designates as masculine or feminine" Tewdar (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

OED - "The role or behaviour learned by a person as appropriate to their gender, determined by the prevailing cultural norms." Tewdar (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Budge et al. (2013) "Transgender Emotional and Coping Processes: Facilitative and Avoidant Coping Throughout Gender Transitioning"

"gender role is defined as the behaviors associated with a public expression of maleness, femaleness, or ambivalence" Tewdar (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Pretty basic stuff, really... Tewdar (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Behaviors are a part of gender roles, but the roles themselves are more accurately described as characteristics. Your definitions here note that attitudes, emotions, and personality traits are involved too. Crossroads 04:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

"Behaviors are a part of gender roles" - indeed. That is why this section title uses the word 'include'.

"the roles themselves are more accurately described as characteristics" - sounds like original research to me. Note that some of the definitions above (I have a *lot* more in a big text file I compiled yesterday) are *entirely* behavioural.

"Your definitions here note that attitudes, emotions, and personality traits are involved too" - this looks like WP:SYN, according to how I have been told it works. Not all of the definitions are *exactly* the same, so a summary like this may not be justifiable. Tewdar (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not SYN to quote your own sources back at you. Again, that gender roles are described as involving behaviors does not mean at the higher level of describing gender as a whole, that "behaviors" is accurate. Crossroads 19:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• Here are some more sources for reference:

• : Though the term gender role immediately was adopted into the scientific language, the term gender identity was soon there too — the role belonging to behavior, and empirically observable; and the identity belonging to the mind, and inferentially con­strued.
• Money and Ehrhardt defined gender identity as "The sameness, unity, and persistence of one's individuality as a male, female, ambivalent, in greater or lesser degree, especially as it is experienced in self-awareness and behavior; gender identity is the private experience of gender role, and gender role is the public expression of gender identity."
• : The primary source for the above quote. Many, many other secondary sources also cite this quote in particular, showing that it was influential (as you would expect given that Money has pretty much an entire paragraph devoted to the significance of his work on the topic in the lead.)

• I think behavior should definitely be mentioned somewhere in the lead, probably both in the first sentence, and I'm not understanding the objection to it - it's clearly a major part of the academic definition of gender. "Characteristics" is technically accurate because anything can be a "characteristic", but by the same token, it is vague; I don't see any reason to omit mentioning behaviors. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • John Money's legacy is now understood to be quite complicated and his views are heavily critiqued. Any argument relying on him is, at best, based on very old sources, as these sources are. "Characteristic" is not vague but broad, and this is a feature, not a bug. It is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE to conclude that gender itself should be defined as "behaviors" alongside "characteristics", when the sources are talking about gender roles, and saying behaviors are part of that. Gender roles prescribe certain behaviors; it does not follow from this that behaviors should be elevated to half the definition of gender itself. People can have a gender without performing all the behaviors society demands of their gender. I have no idea why after years without it a couple of editors want to cram this word in the lead sentence above other specific words that sources use just as much or more than "behaviors". "Characteristics" is appropriately broad and simple. The next sentence then goes on to explain further about gender roles and gender identity. Crossroads 04:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Money, John (1 December 1973). "Gender Role, Gender Identity, Core Gender Identity: Usage and Definition of Terms". Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. 1 (4): 397–402. doi:10.1521/jaap.1.1973.1.4.397. ISSN 0090-3604.
2. Doorn, C. D.; Poortinga, J.; Verschoor, A. M. (1 April 1994). "Cross-gender identity in transvestites and male transsexuals". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 23 (2): 185–201. doi:10.1007/BF01542098. ISSN 1573-2800.
3. Money, John (1 December 1973). "Gender Role, Gender Identity, Core Gender Identity: Usage and Definition of Terms". Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. 1 (4): 397–402. doi:10.1521/jaap.1.1973.1.4.397. ISSN 0090-3604.

This one seems quite widely used:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/sex-and-gender - The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence is the first international human rights document that contains a definition of gender. In Article 3, gender is defined as “socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men.”

eg.

doi: 10.1186/s12960-020-00476-w - "Gender is defined as the ‘socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women and people of other genders'."

and eg.

doi: 10.3390/educsci10090251 - "Gender is defined as “the roles, behaviors, activities, attributes and opportunities that any society considers appropriate for boys and girls, and men and women”

also:

doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13248 - "Gender is defined as the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a culture associates with a person's sex assigned at birth."

&c. & c. & c... Tewdar (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

doi: 10.1038/s41582-018-0091-y Tewdar (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60252-5 Tewdar (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-8-36 Tewdar (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"Collective Consciousness and Gender" (Walker), p. 113 Tewdar (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this proves my point: putting "behaviors" so prominently is cherry-picking one of many terms used in reference to gender, which we can summarize as "characteristics". Especially since these definitions seem not to be about gender identity and so are only partial. Crossroads 03:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Explicit “criticism” section required to address POV issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article seems fairly thorough and quite comprehensive in its coverage, and definitely makes some efforts to address some of the criticisms of the gender concept – which some recent discussions, particularly in the latest “roles/behaviour” and “Lead sentences” sections, illustrate in some detail. However, those criticisms seem to be scattered throughout the article and it doesn’t seem to give sufficient credence, weight, and emphasis to them – something which may well justify arguments that it fails to meet the obligations of NPOV.

Consequently, I would suggest or recommend that an explicit “Criticism” section should be created to address those criticisms and alternative perspectives on the issue in some greater detail. For an example of such, see the Critical race theory article, although many other Misplaced Pages articles likewise make those front and center with such named sections.

While it is, of course, not Misplaced Pages’s role to adjudicate those contentions, Misplaced Pages has some responsibility to be “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Which is, maybe arguably, not here in sufficient evidence since the article apparently lost its GA designation way back in 2008: “fix the neutrality issue”.

But to briefly illustrate some apparent biases, one doesn’t need to look any further than the opening paragraphs – which, one might note, a very old archive (2) drew attention to in the “POV check/edits on opening paragraph”. In any case, the very first of those paragraphs links to the third gender article which refers to “societies that recognize three or more genders”, though one might ask, “if three then why not three million?” For instance, Facebook lists some 56 variations that it accepts, and a “Genderfluid Support” page on Tumblr listed over 100 variations.

But that then leads to the question of how to define gender in the first place. Which seems to be the substance and intent of the “Lead sentence” section – which, in passing, one might suggest is a questionable case of some “general discussion about Gender” which seems to be anathematized right out of the chute ...

However, be that as it may, it is standard operating procedure – part and parcel of Jimmy Wales’ point about “essentially rational” – that if one is defining a category then one must, perforce, stipulate the conditions that all members meet – intensional definitions – or describe and list all those entities which are members – extensional definitions. Sure would like to see Facebook or that third gender article describe exactly who qualifies for membership – and why – in each of those myriads of genders; sure would like to see, for example, what uniquely differentiates the “female gender” from all those myriads of other ones. As Voltaire emphasized, “if you wish to converse with me, define your terms”.

But the whole concept of gender seems largely incoherent, inconsistent, and riven with various ideological biases – and the recent “discussions” on the “lead sentence” just underlines that point; absent a specification on who qualifies for membership in which category and sub-categories, the whole concept seems so vague as to be useless. We might just as well be pondering, learnedly, on how many angels can dance on the head or pin or on the finer points of astrology: the premises, at least of most “schools” or sects, are badly flawed and poorly stitched together in the first place. If anyone were really keen about putting the concept on a sound and scientific footing then they might peruse the dichotomy between polythetic and monothetic categories in both a biological context and in more linguistic and philosophical contexts.

In any case and to again emphasize, it is not Misplaced Pages’s role to adjudicate on those contentions. Its role is, to reiterate and as far as this article goes, less a question of how to define gender and what it encompasses – which those “lead sentence” and “role/behaviour” sections discuss, somewhat questionably, in some detail – and more a question of how to describe those biases and different positions with some accuracy, fairness, and equanimity. My intent here is less to “discuss gender” – “not a forum for general discussion about Gender” though one might wonder where else but an article on the topic; it is more to draw attention to some substantial criticisms of the largely feminist views on gender which this article seems to be giving undue weight to – particularly without drawing explicit and manifestly evident attention to those criticisms.

And a paradigmatic example of that bias is afforded by the rather uncritical touting of the WHO’s definition of gender in a link in the article’s second paragraph:

“Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.”

Which is more or less explicitly the position of large segments and schools and “waves” of “feminism” as argued and suggested in a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article:

“Masculinity and femininity are thought to be products of nurture or how individuals are brought up. “

But many other sources raise some salient and apparently well-justified arguments and criticisms against that position, notably in arguing that “masculinity and femininity” are not just “products of nurture” but that “nature” – i.e., biological causes and factors – contributes substantially to whatever we might agree qualifies as gender. Although while this article’s “Biological factors” section does seem to address that aspect, it doesn’t seem to weigh very heavily against the premises and claims touted in the opening paragraphs.

In any case and as examples of other salient points of view not in much evidence, there is The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker – who apparently doesn’t even rate an honourable mention here. But Pinker, among many others, clearly draws attention to a fundamental and far-reaching and quite contentious dichotomy among feminists and to the position of “gender feminists” which seems to motivate and undergird much of the “conventional wisdom” – often “short-sighted, narrow, and untrustworthy” – on gender:

“Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety.”

(There’s an archive of that Chapter but I won’t link it as it may qualify as copyrighted material.)

In addition, in a Research Gate article – Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender – by Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico that is apparently to become a chapter in a book to be published by Springer, Del Giudice pointedly argues that:

… the received history of this topic is also ideologically slanted and full of distortions, half-truths, and sometimes sheer fabrications. ….

Thus, egalitarianism and desire for social change toward equality go hand in hand with a social constructionist, “blank slate” perspective on human nature. In short:

“Feminist theorists view gender not as a biologically created reality, but as a socially constructed phenomenon (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2018, p. 13).”

And, finally, in spelunking through the archives, I ran across an article in Breitbart that is of some relevance. While one might reasonably question their bona fides, it’s a bit more difficult to do that with what they had discussed, to wit, an article by Charlotta Stern, apparently the “deputy chair of Stockholm University’s sociology department”, which was published in Econ Journal Watch. And from which, a salient portion of the article’s abstract:

“In my experience as a sociologist, I see many ways in which gender sociology tends to insulate itself from challenges to its own sacred beliefs and sacred causes. The sacred beliefs are to the effect that the biological differences between the sexes are minor and that the cultural differences between the genders have little basis in biological differences. The scholarly findings that challenge the sacred beliefs come from anthropology, developmental psychology, evolutionary psychology, the neurosciences, genetics, biology, and many other fields. For many decades now researchers have amassed findings of differences in competitiveness, aggression, sexual interest, risk behavior, and many other traits, and differences in brain physiology and neuroimaging, by many different methods and approaches.”

But to conclude and to again emphasize, my intent here is not to argue in favour of a particular definition for gender – which some others here are apparently engaged in and have been for some time – but to draw some attention to some apparently quite serious ideological biases, and very questionable science, that undergirds the conventional wisdom on gender, much of it motivated by something of a feminist sect. And much of that “debate” and controversy seems not adequately addressed by this article. It seems that if it wishes to reacquire the GA designation and not be subject to POV accusations then it should at least be more cognizant of the obligations of NPOV policy. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to expect your fellow editors to read that. I encourage you start a discussion focused on one or two concrete suggestions for the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TillermanJimW that’s too long for me to read. I think it would be best for you to simply what you are saying and then when reply to editors individually with your arguments. It makes things easier.CycoMa (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I waded through portions of the 6 archives on the topic, not to mention many of the sections in both the article and this Talk page, not to mention various links, you should be able to manage to read at least a couple of links and paragraphs I used to justify my case ;-)

Like I've said, it's a very complex issue, but the devils are in the details - not sure how we can hope to come to some workable consensus on how to change the article to meet various issues - notably NPOV - without being willing to at least grapple with some of them. --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll concede that I've covered quite a bit of ground there and I sort of apologize for the length of it. But it seemed important to put the major points and bones of contention in one section instead of trying to open with a major point and then bring in other aspects as the discussion developed.

But I kind of think that I started the ball rolling in the direction of your "one or two concrete suggestions" by the title of the section: explicit section - Criticism - to address the spectrum of conflicting opinions and viewpoints. And to elaborate on that, rather than, as some have argued, fiddling with the opening sentence, I'd also suggest, as a tentative starting point, an explicit acknowledgement of that spectrum: "Gender is commonly seen as a range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between femininity and masculinity, although there is a great deal of controversy over which biological and psychological traits qualify as relevant differentia".

That, I think, opens the door to later discussions on who endorses which traits - gender and equity feminist views for example - and which "schools" offer what type of criticisms. Been a lot of digital ink spilt on the issue, but clearly identifying who's claiming what seems to be the only rational way forward. --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think criticisms is a good word for the kind of section you're hoping to get added, and I don't there's enough difference in interpretation of gender to warrant dedicating a section to explaining them. ––FormalDude talk 04:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Not really "wedded" to the term "criticisms". Although, as mentioned the article on Critical race theory uses it, and the article on logical positivism has a similarly worded section titled "Critics". And seem to recollect other articles likewise. So anything that clearly indicates some dispute with the 'orthodoxy' that most feminists subscribe to - and that this article apparently more or less endorses - would be a step in the right direction.

As for "difference in interpretation of gender", I don't think that holds a lot of water. As the article itself commendably notes, many people - including the erstwhile HUD Secretary Ben Carson - seem to see gender as synonymous with sex. Which causes no end of problems. And you might at least read the Del Giudice essay which describes in some detail some serious problems with the feminist viewpoint. Bit of a lengthy article but generally worth the effort to see where he's coming from. --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TillermanJimW, Misplaced Pages is not a forum, nor is it a soapbox – telling people to read an essay simply because it points out some serious problems with what you describe as the feminist viewpoint is near (if not outside) the bounds of appropriate talk page usage. You've noted your awareness of WP:NOTFORUM earlier in this section, so please try to adhere to it.

This seems to be a due weight issue, where you contend that the article gives undue weight to a specific definition of gender and does not give due weight to other conceptions of what gender is. What you need to do in order for a change to be made is provide reliable sources demonstrating the prominence of a view you feel is underrepresented in the article. It's possible you've already done this, but it's honestly very hard to tell because of the length of your initial posting. Out of respect for other editors, please try to be concise. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bit of a stretch to say that "you might at least read article X" qualifies as telling anybody do anything. And, as I mentioned, it seems that many other people here have been discussing the concept of gender itself with little to no discussion on how that might improve the article.

But I'll concede that "due weight" might be relevant. However, while I'll also concede that my intial post was maybe overly long for which I'll apologize - again, I think I've already more or less clearly given evidence of a "view I feel is underrepresented in the article". As they might not be readily evident in what I posted, they were, first-off, the quotes of Steven Pinker in his Blank Slate; while that's probably copyrighted though I'm not sure of the laws on that score, Googling "joel velasco pinker blank slate" should yield a copy of the chapter on Gender. Secondarily, there was the article by Del Giudice - some 8 pages of references which I expect well justify his argument about the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender". And thirdly, the essay at Econ Journal Watch by Charlotta Stern - "associate professor and deputy chair of the sociology department at Stockholm University" - on "Undoing Insularity: A Small Study of Gender Sociology’s Big Problem".

Though I will try to be more "concise" in the future. :-) Even if that is often rather difficult when the issues are so convoluted and contentious as they are with gender. --TillermanJimW (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• I actually did skim read that, and it was way longer than it needed to be. TillermanJimW, here's what I suggest. Just propose specific academic WP:RS and specific text based on them that you think should be added to the article. It's that simple. Nobody here is interested in long forum debates about feminism or nature vs. nurture. I will say that a criticism section is not warranted, since what you describe is criticism of gender understood as pure-nurture, not of the concept itself. Crossroads 05:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, thanks at least for the "skim" :-). Though "longer than it needed to be" is probably moot.

But "propose specific RS & specific text" may be a useful suggestion. However, I think I've already provided several such "reliable sources", and a suggested change to the leading sentence in a subsequent comment (above): "Gender is commonly seen as a range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between femininity and masculinity, although there is a great deal of controversy over which biological and psychological traits qualify as relevant differentia".

Which I might further add to immediately following that with, "While that orthodox view largely derives from gender feminism and social constructionism, many sources offer substantial critiques of that position." Though in passing, I note that the social constructionism article has an explict "criticisms" section so it's not as if I'm cutting the idea from whole cloth.

But your "what you describe is criticism of gender understood as pure-nurture, not of the concept itself" doesn't seem to hold much water at all. As I pointed out, the WHO position is, apparently, that gender is entirely socially constructed - no contributions whatsoever from various biological factors - chromosomes & hormones in particular which clearly, on no shortage of substantial and well-documented evidence, have a great deal of influence on the personalities that are typical of nominal males (sex) and nominal females (sex). And "personalities" as a synonym for gender is not exactly cut from whole cloth either - for instance, the SEP article on femininism that I quoted from above explicitly refers to "Gender as feminine and masculine personality" as the heading for section 2.2

In addition to that, your "not the concept itself" is rather "problematic" as virtually every man, woman, otherkin and their cats, dogs, and gerbils has a different concept of gender - the objective of this article should be to clarify and illustrate that spectrum of diverse and quite contradictory conceptions of the term. And your own comment in the "Lead sentence" underlines that dog's breakfast: "I also expect that definitions vary by academic field and especially by theoretical perspective." Tower of Babel, Part Deux; we can't possibly communicate if everyone has a different definition of the relevant terms.

But somewhat more usefully, you also said there that, "I also don't like tying 'roles' and "behaviors" in so definitively with what gender is." However, behaviours is what many sources, including Merriam-Webster, argue is encompassed by the term:

"Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits."

Are behaviours only "socially constructed"? Or are there maybe some biological factors - chromosomes and hormones in particular - that maybe contribute notable differences in the behaviours, on average, of human males (sex) and human females (sex)? Which underlines the reasons why I think it crucially necessary to have a more or less comprehensive survey of the quite contradictory conceptions of gender - they can't all be "right" or particularly useful. --TillermanJimW (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Um, "longer than it needed to be" is definitely not moot, it's objective. Take these other editors' advice and exercise some brevity please. You shouldn't be taking multiple paragraphs to explain your point. ––FormalDude talk 08:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think what's been proposed here is the way to go. I don't see a reason to move up the current nature/nurture bit in the lead. And you should be aware of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. So changes to the lead should only be to reflect the body more accurately. Crossroads 01:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Writing article; some useful information there that I hadn't been aware of.

But your "don't see a reason to move up the current nature/nurture bit" doesn't seem tenable at all. For instance, the "criticism" section in the Social construction of gender article, referenced in the Lead section, argues that "Theories that imply that gendered behavior is totally or mostly due to social conventions and culture represent an extreme nurture position in the nature versus nurture debate". And the WHO article also linked and touted in the Lead section seems pretty clearly in that "extreme nurture position". If this article wants to reacquire its GA designation - lost some 13 years ago apparently due to NPOV issues - then maybe it needs to be less supportive of and biased towards that particular position - as seems generally the case.

In addition, I notice that the writing article clearly argues that the lead section should "mention ... consequential or significant criticism or controversies". While I'll concede that the fourth paragraph in the lead acknowledges that "the natural sciences investigate whether biological differences in females and males influence the development of gender in humans", and there's even a section (3) that apparently elaborates on that, the article still seems not to be giving due consideration to the extent of that particular controversy, of many, and the many substantive articles justifying a different view on the concept.

Off hand and tentatively speaking, I'd suggest renaming that section 3 into "Controversies" and elaborating on the evidence for biological contributions to "gender". Although there's some evidence that the "nature" aspect hardly exhausts the extent of those controversies, some being sociological - transwomen in women's sports for example - and others being more scientific. For instance, "Investigating Conflation of Sex and Gender Language in Student Writing About Genetics" - and that, from a Google search, is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. But with the development of that section, one could then update the Lead section accordingly. --TillermanJimW (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

TillermanJimW like I said earlier it’s hard to engage with you if your comments are really long. You don’t have to rush anything, just take your time and tell us your individual concerns and issues with quick and easy to read comments.CycoMa (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa You might note that a comment above by Crossroads on Roughgarden was some 1066 words while my opening salvo was 1279 – not even 20% more than his. And comments by other people here haven’t been much less. If you’re going to try busting my chops for length then you might try applying that yardstick equally. So maybe you need to try a bit harder to “engage” with what I’ve said and not be so quick to dismiss what I've said on the basis of length.

However, in looking through recent discussions I noticed that you had said that this article “has also been guilty of distorting information especially regarding the biological view of the topic.” And asked, “hasn’t it already been established that gender is sociological thing while sex is a biological thing?”

Quite agree on the “distorting information biological view”. However regarding “sociological thing”, I note that the section on “Biological factors and views” states, “... causation from the biological—genetic and hormonal—to the behavioral has been broadly demonstrated and accepted ....” But, to emphasize that point, the behavioural – part and parcel of Personality which is often seen as more or less synonymous with gender – is, as indicated, partly determined by biological factors. Even if, as the section reasonably goes on to say, the “understanding of the causal chains from biology to behavior in sex and gender issues is very far from complete”. Not just a question of gender being a “sociological thing” but also being a “biological thing”.

Which more or less underlines many of my objections to this article as it sits now: a rather questionable, biased, and quite pervasive policy by many here of trying to sweep the biological aspects and elements of gender under the carpet – at one corner or the other.

Somewhat more broadly, I can at least sympathize with your removal of the “Gender taxonomy” subsection (3.1 of an earlier version), although I think the concept has some merit and utility. But that sympathy is largely because I’ve seen next to no taxonomical effort towards or any evidence of any “scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics”, characteristics that might reasonably be seen to differentiate between the various and multitudinous genders implied by the concept.

But that underlines the fundamental issue, difficulty and question with reaching a consensus on the concept of gender: which of those many “sexually dimorphic characteristics” are relevant in clearly differentiating between the two or twenty or 200 billion different genders that are possible? Much of gender, at least as it’s being touted here and in the view of much of feminism, is largely incoherent and unscientific if not anti-scientific claptrap, little better than phrenology and astrology. Too many seem to be losing sight of, or are trying to repudiate or sweep under the carpet, some fundamental and quite sound principles. --TillermanJimW (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Much of gender, at least as it’s being touted here and in the view of much of feminism, is largely incoherent and unscientific if not anti-scientific claptrap, little better than phrenology and astrology. Too many seem to be losing sight of, or are trying to repudiate or sweep under the carpet, some fundamental and quite sound principles. TillermanJimW, I know I linked you to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX earlier in this discussion. Please suggest specific changes and provide reliable sources to support them, or stop engaging. Your behavior right now (such as the example I quoted in green) looks like advocacy to me, and that's not what Misplaced Pages is for. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I have already, repeatedly, "suggested specific changes" and "reliable sources" to back them up, to wit: create a criticisms section and address the fairly voluminous and well sourced and evidenced view that "gender" and personality - which is commonly seen as part and parcel of gender - is not just a matter of "social construction" but one strongly influenced by biological factors. And I've also suggested changes to the Lead section that would point to and lead into a discussion or description of the related controversies. Not sure what else you expect me to do - draw some pictures with circles & arrows?

But you might note the introduction in the WP:BETTER article:

"Each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead, including any prominent controversies; but be careful not to violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies, information, or praise in the lead section"

If I'm "advocating" anything it is that this article meet the NPOV requirements by clearly addressing those controversies in an equitable manner. Instead of apparently trying to sweep them under the carpet. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I'm afraid that much of what has been proposed in the WP:WALLOFTEXT above seems out of place for this article. This isn't Social construction of gender, much less Gender studies, so I have no idea what comparisons to Critical race theory or proposals of a "Criticism" section are meant to do in this context. Is there non-WP:FRINGE "criticism" of gender as such? If so, what WP:RS are proposed as sourced for such "criticism"? Because gender is a part of everyday lived experience and is also pervasive in contemporary scholarship, and this article is supposed to deal with actual gender in the real world, rather than "gender skeptical" or "gender critical" fan-fiction within-world plot summary. Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be like Hallmark in having a WP card for every occasion. Even if they often bear some resemblance to the race card which is often played when people don’t have any substantive arguments.

However, I notice your “card” also says, in the fine print, that:

“However, an equal-but-opposite questionable strategy is dismissal of legitimate evidence and valid rationales with a claim of "text-walling" or "TL;DR". Not every matter can be addressed with a one-liner, and validity does not correspond to length, especially the more complex the matter is.”

In any case since you don’t seem to have much patience for reading what I’ve said or have much in the way of a commitment to AGF, I have already addressed in some detail your question about “non fringe criticism of gender as such” and have provided some solid “reliable sources”. And will repeat a subsequent comment that addressed that question here:

“As they might not be readily evident in what I posted, they were, first-off, the quotes of Steven Pinker in his Blank Slate; while that's probably copyrighted though I'm not sure of the laws on that score, Googling "joel velasco pinker blank slate" should yield a PDF copy of the chapter on Gender. Secondarily, there was the article by Del Giudice - some 8 pages of references which I expect well justify his argument about the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender". And thirdly, the essay at Econ Journal Watch by Charlotta Stern - "associate professor and deputy chair of the sociology department at Stockholm University" - on "Undoing Insularity: A Small Study of Gender Sociology’s Big Problem".”

But your “because gender is a part of everyday lived experience ....” seems particularly problematic. For one thing, that seems based on a prior assumption as to what gender is; you’re “begging the question”, you’re assuming, you’re clearly biased towards the view, that the orthodox position is the only tenable one on the table. What “gender is” is very much the point and objective of this article: to present the orthodox view – mostly “the extreme nurture position” endorsed by much of feminist ideology – along with the heterodox positions which clearly have some substance and currency behind them.

And for another thing, I’m not quite sure how you apparently think that “lived experience” qualifies as any sort of “reliable source”. Highly subjective at best – the Tyranny of the Subjective as UK/US lawyer, and philosophy professor Elizabeth Finne put it in an essay at Quillette.

And that subjectivity seems to be a large and problematic part of what many people take to be gender and gender identity in the first place. For instance, an essay at Cultural Anthropology by Sahar Sadjadi – Assistant Professor, Department of Social Studies of Medicine at the University of McGill – notes “the magico-spiritual undertone of the conversations” on the topic, and the “merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition.”

Refusing to put the concept of gender on something of a scientific footing – instead of the “magico-spiritual” “merging of science, magic, and religion” that seems to follow from that “extreme nurture position” – is apparently a large part of the reason for the controversy over the concept to begin with. Not to mention the many social problems that seem to follow therefrom. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Gender identity in animals

Tewdar

I think your edit kind of distorts what the man is say also now am I wiki voicing. My old revision said this. According to Jacques Balthazart gender identity may be controlled by prenatal sex steroids but this is hard to test because there is no way to study gender identity in animals.

I thought this sentence was obvious that this is view from this guy.

You putting down

According to Jacques Balthazart, clinical data "suggests that the organization of sexual identity could be controlled by pre-natal sex steroids." He says that this idea is difficult to assess, however, because "there is no animal model for studying sexual identity."

Kind of makes that statement irrelevant to the article.

So here is what the source for that sentence is saying. has been Regardless of which sex is found interesting or exciting, each human being is also confident of belonging to one sex, male or female. This conviction is unchangeable, and it often seems to develop during early childhood. Most people have a sexual identity that matches their genitalia, although a small number of people are convinced to the contrary and believe themselves “to be born in a body that does not correspond to their gender." They are called trans- sexuals by sexologists. This gender identity is already apparent in early child- hood and, contrary to what was thought until recently, it is usually difficult or impossible to change it later (see the story of John/Joan, Chapter 2). Clinical data suggest natal sex steroids. This idea is difficult to assess, in part because there is no animal model for studying sexual identity. It is impossible to ask an animal, whatever its species, to what sex it belongs. In addition to communication dif- ficulties associated with such an undertaking, this would imply that the animal is aware of its own body and sex, which is far from proved even though recent research daily shows new sophisticated cognitive skills not only among pri- mates but also in species more distant from humans, such as dolphins and even birds such as parrots and corvids (a family including crows and jays). CycoMa (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope, something is wrong with your OCR:

"Regardless of which sex is found interesting or exciting, each human being is also confident of belonging to one sex, male or female. This conviction is unchangeable, and it often seems to develop during early childhood. Most people have a sexual identity that matches their genitalia, although a small number of people are convinced to the contrary and believe themselves “to be born in a body that does not correspond to their gender.” They are called trans-sexuals by sexologists. This gender identity is already apparent in early childhood and, contrary to what was thought until recently, it is usually difficult or impossible to change it later (see the story of John/Joan, Chapter 2). Clinical data suggest that the organization of sexual identity could be controlled by pre-natal sex steroids. This idea is difficult to assess, in part because there is no animal model for studying sexual identity. It is impossible to ask an animal, whatever its species, to what sex it belongs." Tewdar (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wikivoicing: This idea is difficult to assess, in part because there is no animal model for studying sexual identity.

• Not Wikivoicing: Someone said, "This idea is difficult to assess, in part because there is no animal model for studying sexual identity." Tewdar (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

So, how exactly am I "distorting" what he says? Or would you like to strikethrough that comment? Tewdar (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• @CycoMa - please retract your suggestion that I am distorting what he says. Tewdar (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No, because it discusses identity and role. I can remove the section heading if you think it inappropriate. Also, please retract your suggestion that I am distorting what he says Tewdar (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Learn to slow down with your comments. I literally deleted my comment because I changed my mind.CycoMa (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Please strikethrough, rather than delete your comments. It's rather irritating. Tewdar (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Learn to slow down with your comments" - from you, this is high praise indeed. Tewdar (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, that whole section will be nuked at 5am (my time zone) when Crossroads sees what we've done to his article, so I wouldn't worry about any of it. Tewdar (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah he does that kind of thing. Also if I were you I would get prepared for a long discussion over this.CycoMa (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I won't be participating in any discussion with Crossroads. Hopefully someone else will persuade him the content should stay. Tewdar (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Really loving the assumption of good faith toward me here. /s Anyway, the reasons I cited for reverting this don't apply this time, so I won't. The current version is fine. There was no good reason to cite so many old, primary sources. And regarding this, John Money's influence on the field is well-known and can be cited to recent sources. There was no evidence that those old papers had any significant influence. Crossroads 05:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads I assume you have good intentions, you are here to help create a great encyclopedia but at times you do come off as being a little irritated at other editors over certain things.

Plus there are situations where to some people you do come off as being agenda driven.

But, hey at times I’m that way too.CycoMa (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on a single source

Statements like

However, Poiani (2010) notes that "hether similarities in behaviours across species are associated with similarities in internal mental states such as gender identity or not is an issue of no easy resolution", and suggests that mental states, such as gender identity, are more accessible in humans than other species due to their capacity for language. He also suggests that an organism must be self-conscious to possess a gender identity and so for that reason "the number of those species is probably limited." And Despite this, Poiani and Dixson emphasise the applicability of the concept of gender role to non-human animals such as rodents throughout their book.

Are all from the same source. The other sources in that subsection appear to be more in favor of gender only being a human concept.

Hird (2006) has also stated that whether or not non-human animals consider themselves to be feminine or masculine is a "difficult, if not impossible, question to answer", as this would " judgements about what constitutes femininity or masculinity in any given species". Nonetheless she asserts that "non-human animals do experience femininity and masculinity to the extent that any given species’ behaviour is gender segregated."

Does appear to think some aspects of gender are applied to other species. But is hard to say how much gender other species are.

Sure this The concept of gender role has also been applied to non-human primates such as rhesus monkeys. mentions two sources about gender roles in primates but this isn’t surprising because humans of course are primates.CycoMa (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hird, presumably intentionally, never uses "gender anything" to refer to non-human animals. The "gender in animals" side have three sources, one of which summarizes the position well. Even Crossroads said it was alright, didn't he?! How would the section be improved by throwing short snippets from lots of sources into a WP:SYNTH sentence that I would be accused of, were I to do that? Tewdar (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes three sources mention gender in animals. What I am mainly asking is that the parts regarding Poiani and Dixson be trimmed down a bit. Like I don’t think you need three sentences for a single source.

I may read through the sources and trim stuff down in my time.CycoMa (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar also I didn’t accuse you of WP:SYN here.CycoMa (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I know - that's why I said "would be" rather than "am being" Tewdar (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to add sources to the "majority view" if it adds anything useful, preferably arranged sensibly with the rest of the "majority view" so it has a bit of structure. Tewdar (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what exactly you would like to remove from that source. It is all pertinent to the discussion. Tewdar (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That source talks about links between behaviours and gender id, language and gender id, and self consciousness and gender id. Why would anyone want to get rid of these things? Tewdar (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

103 words, bleddy Nora it's hardly War and Peace... Tewdar (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Not get rid just trim it down. I will also try trimming down the things I added too.CycoMa (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. Tewdar (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Look, please can you leave the stuff I added alone until I can "trim down" those 103 words this evening, at least? Tewdar (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m not gonna touch it. All I am asking is to shorten it down a bit.CycoMa (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, your stuff doesn't need to be trimmed down. If you trim it down, it will lose clarity. Which, I have to say, is the sad consequence of many of your edits. Tewdar (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I bet nobody else thinks it ought to be "trimmed down" except you. Tewdar (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The letter from Ellen Ketterson could be replaced with something better, however. Tewdar (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I may tweak at the stuff I added a bit but I do see what you mean.CycoMa (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, it is a bit overquoted, and could be summarized. Obviously, now that Crossroads has given his seal of approval, I could probably sumarize the remarks if 103 words is really too much to ask. Tewdar (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you on it being over quoted.CycoMa (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

How's that now? Also, try and find a better source than Ellen Ketterson chattering to the Gender Studies department at her university, will you? Tewdar (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

271 words in total for that section. That's alright I think. Tewdar (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

But the changes you made did fix it up.CycoMa (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely on the way to a 'B' class article now, thanks to our awesome improvements. 😁👍 Tewdar (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait, it's already 'B' class I think... Tewdar (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no merge. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to quickly respond to the "length" issue - I'd bet a significant proportion of the sex-gender distinction article is duplicated from the gender or sex articles anyway. Tewdar (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - length is very likely to be an issue. The analogy isn't apt since the distinction appears to be a notable topic aside from gender itself. Crossroads 05:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The distinction is a notable topic not to mention the article on the distinction has been around for over a decade.CycoMa (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the proposed merge meets all criteria for WP:NOTMERGE:
  1. The resulting article would be too long or "clunky"
  2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles
  3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short
  There's some overlap between the articles and Gender is certainly helpful context in understanding this one, but there's too much to say about both topics outside of their overlap for me to support a merge. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. The article is specifically about distinguishing the two, not simply about the definition of gender. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – Sex and gender distinction is a notable topic which also meets WP:PAGEDECIDE, meaning it belongs in its own page. Also, sex and gender distinction is not a made-up term in the way that a neutral descriptive title on many articles may be; it is an actual topic of scholarly study under that precise name, and has several thousand results in academic journals using that exact title; whereas a similar expression like, say, "gender and identity distinction" used as a control for comparison has a total of 32 results. The topics Gender, and Sex and gender distinction are clearly two separate topics, are studied and published as separate topics, and should remain as two separate articles. Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Turns out, Misplaced Pages does indeed have a Negative and positive rights article... Tewdar (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Creating Sex or gender(d:Q18382802) could be another option. Sharouser (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Too broad"

Template:Page range too broad says, In external style guides, the standard citation method for academic journal articles is to list the full page range for the whole article, although editors are free to voluntarily establish a different citation style in an individual Misplaced Pages article. Has such a citation style been established for this article? Tewdar (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No. CycoMa, please do not use this template for journal articles. Only use it for book citations. And don't overuse it - only if it is unclear that the book actually verifies the claim. It may be citing a whole chapter, for example. Crossroads 05:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I swear I didn’t use it for journals.CycoMa (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Also I have been jumping around everywhere and touching every subject on Misplaced Pages, so I don’t even remember what I tagged.CycoMa (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: - you used it on quite a lot of journals... Tewdar (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, now that I check the edit history, I cannot find any evidence that it was CycoMa who added those tags. I just sort of assumed it 😁. Very sorry! Tewdar (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I know this discussion may be over, but I do agree we should merge the pages. Most people assume sex = gender, which is not the case. With a section on the gender page describing the difference between the two, it could help people be educated on non-binary genders, and transgender people! Krypto — Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class Gender studies articles
• Top-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Top-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles