Talk:Female/Archive 1

Archive 1

No mention of humans

How about some mention of humans? Like maybe something about how human females are generally called women?

It seems to me that's well-covered in the "See also", with links to full articles on the subjects.--Curtis Clark 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Male and Female

I am struck by the assymmetry between this page and male...perhaps female should also be a disambig page on that model? But I'm not feeling quite that bold today.--Sharkford 19:01, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

Yeah, well? Build up some endurance then, you wussy ;) Although I don't understand what's so troublin' with those articles havin' to be SIMILIAR just'cuz their polarized opposites of each-other...and as'fer'e disaumbigation...well, hate to tell ya, BRO, but I HATE'RAT IDEA..'cuz wha? Cuz'shwela! It fit's better as a seperate article, perhaps 'gender', leadin' to'rem - 'rese gender's.--OleMurder 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia:Female

First listed in most wanted stubs, this article's scope is not wide enough. See "What links here" :

• Actor
• Abortion
• Abortion's discussion page
• Akira
• Body
• Breast
• Bee
• Carolus Linnaeus
• Columbia, Missouri
• Clitoris
• Cloning
• Discordianism
• Dog
• Distributism
• Endocrine system
• Gamete
• Gestation
• Genetically modified organism
• Girl group
• Grammatical gender
• Hong Kong
• Houston, Texas
• Horse breeding
• Heterosexuality
• Japan
• Mammal
• Monty Python
• Monarch
• Man
• Monogamy
• November 24
• Naked News
• Ovum
• Osteoporosis
• Orgasm
• Ovary
• Pregnancy
• Patterson-Gimlin film
• Postmodernism
• Discussion about Penis
• Feminazi
• Reproductive system
• Biological reproduction
• Sex
• Kathryn Janeway
• B'Elanna Torres
• Beverly Crusher
• Deanna Troi
• Hoshi Sato
• Spermatozoon

Etc, etc, etc...

(950 links; Also, I cant't tell the order links are listed with.)

May I suggest a "See also" section to the most prominent subjects ? --DLL 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comment on The male's talk-page.--Curtis Clark 17:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Something still amiss in the description of bird chromosomes. I think it should be that male birds are homochromosomal (?), since they have identical sex chromosomes, right? Csari 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--Curtis Clark 17:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Sexual identities" template

I think this is extraordinarily POV for an article about females among all organisms, since it is clearly meant to be about humans only (although parts of it are perhaps applicable to other mammals). If it were an article on sexual identity, I'd have no objection at all, but the template dominates Female by its size, and makes the article even more human-centric.--Curtis Clark 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all females are mammals

I think the section on Mammalian female belongs in Mammal, not here. Unless I hear any objections, I'll move in in a few days.--Curtis Clark 04:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If your're going to have a section on female mammals then you would have to have one on every phylum where the organisms can be females. So it's best not to have a mammalian section. As a bio major, I know all too well that not every female organism is mammalian. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said that every female was mammalian. I just was pointing out the things that make mammalian females unique. --Luigifan 12:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There are things that make Ascomycota females unique, too. Should we mention them here or in Ascomycota?--Curtis Clark 20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Mention them here. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. --Luigifan 20:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why I provided a wikilink.--Curtis Clark 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Symbol

I find in older (19th century) journals different symbols for female. Sometimes the current symbol is used upside down; more often, the male symbol is used but opinting in the opposite direction ("southwest" instead of "northeast". Clearly the present convention is not as old as it appears. But I am unable to find good info about the history of the symbols; the sources I come up with read as if the current symbols have been used alsways, which is clearly wrong. Dysmorodrepanis 22:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Linnaeus used symbols the same as the modern ones in his works from the 18th C. I wonder if the 19th C. variations aren't the result of the typesetter not having the right sort and substituting.--Curtis Clark 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Electronics

Why isn't there mention that device connectors (that plug into sockets) are referrred to as 'male', and the receptacles are labelled 'female'? Mr.bonus 23:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

See Female (disambiguation). Bennyboyz3000 08:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

???

"The American Heritage Dictionary and the Random House Dictionary are not completely clear on this point, which is a sensitive point: it is hard to find neutral terms for women performing jobs once reserved for men, because these women generally insist that they belong there; and many other people—including some women—insist that they do not."

something about that seems wrong, weasel words maybe? 76.0.216.110 (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"The word female is generally considered neutral when used as an adjective; when used as a noun, it is often regarded as derogatory."

I had no idea that was the case, and I am a female. I've always thought it was dry and neutral. Citations? 130.58.248.57 (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"it is hard to find neutral terms for women performing jobs once reserved for men, because these women generally insist that they belong there; and many other people—including some women—insist that they do not."

What? Was this Wikipedia article written in the 60's? 38.98.223.97 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Definately an unclear sentence. What are "they" - the women (in the jobs), the neutral or 'biased' terms (in the description), or something else entirely?

Also: "The word female is generally considered neutral when used as an adjective; when used as a noun, it is often regarded as derogatory." is there any citation for this, or is it just something thrown in? Personally, I've never heard such a distinction, so I find this hard to include without appropriate sourcing. Biccat (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Joke?

-"In human beings, only the female is capable of complete consumption of the male's soul. They have been known to this very often and without mercy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.199.240 (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously vandalism (with some truth to it I must add), please delete it and move on. 72.152.135.75 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of symbol

The article explains that the symbols for female/male 'are (probably) derived from contractions in Greek script of the Greek names of these planets, namely Thouros (Mars) and Phosphoros (Venus)', but underneath the image of the symbol at the top of the page it says 'The hand mirror and comb of the Roman goddess Venus is often used to represent the female sex.' Should one of these be changed? (I have no idea which is the true origin).212.32.105.12 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the Symbol section has references and the caption under the image doesn't, can we just change the caption to agree with the Symbol section?Sylvia A (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mobile?

The lead sentence reads

Female (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces mobile ova (egg cells).

Shouldn't that be immobile? Or is it some technical distinction between mobile and motile, which is used just after? Rojomoke (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Chromosomes

I removed the following:

Female is actually the the "default" sex for a developing organism: unless the male chromosome is present, the organism will develop as a female. In humans, most females' sex chromosomes are XX, whereas those of a male are XY, "Y" being the male chromosome.

The mistakes are too complex to change easily.

• "Default" sex can also be interpreted hormonally. It's a complex issue even in mammals, and it doesn't generalize at all.
• XX/XY chromosome determination is mammalian. In birds, males are homochromosomal (ZZ, if I remember correctly, and females are ZW), in fruit flies, males have one X and females have two, and in many organisms there is no chromosomal sex determination. Even in mammals, it is not the chromosome, but rather the genes it contains, and one theory is that because full sex expression involves several genes, the X and Y differentiated as a result of selection against crossing over.

An article about chromosomal sex determination might be worthwhile, and it could be linked from this article.--Curtis Clark 00:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, "Usually all females of a species have certain chromosomes present or missing that make them female." is clearly wrong, except possibly in one specific interpretation. It all hinges on the word "usually". According to biomass, organisms are usually plants, where sex chromosomes are so rare as to warrant publications. In terms of higher taxa, organisms are usually protists, again with few cases of sex chromosomes. In the case of species, organisms are usually beetles, and if beetles have the same sex determination as fruit flies (I don't know), then perhaps the statement could be true. And I did look up sex-determination system, which deals with sex chromosomes. --Curtis Clark 01:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's clear up the facts on this page so no one adds incorrect information to the actual article. Note that the below apply only to animals because gender distinctions in plants are nearly impossible to draw except in a very limited number of species and all but impossible outside of the plant and animal kingdoms.

• Female is the "default" sex for humans and other mammals. Until hormones begin acting to cause "maleness" during early embryological development, all embryos are morphologically female. Whether that actually makes them female is debatable, but it is true that the penis develops from an infolding that could be considered a "proto-vagina", if you will. I honestly don't know how the determination of sex works in development in non-mammals.

• While mammals use the XX-XY system for sex determination, this is not by any means the dominant system for gender determination. Birds use ZZ(male)-ZW(female). Most insects use X(male)-XX(female). Male bees and ants in most species are haploid while their female and asexual counterparts are diploid. In the mammal Tympanoctomys barrerae, or red viscacha rat, the system is XXXY(male)-XXXX(female) because the entire species is tetraploid instead of diploid. In short, XX-XY is a naive and narrow definition of maleness and femaleness that only applies to (most) mammals.

Hope that clears things up. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't true even in mammals. Females are the sex that produce ova, etc. as described in the article. An XY human that doesn't get the hormones you mention - such as a man with androgyn-insensitivity syndrome - does not develop a uterus or ovaries and thus is not female. He still develops testes, although they may be internal and nonfunctional. Many parts of his body may appear externally female, but that is not sufficient to make him female. He either remains male or is neither male nor female. 73.97.36.216 (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Vestigal mammary glands in males?

Personally, I would argue that they are not vestigial in males but simply inactive. Vestigial means "seemingly lost all or most of the original function". This is not accurate for the mammary glands in males. Given the proper hormones and/or stimulation, the glands do become active and do produce milk. I'd change it, but I'm not sure if this level of nitpicking is worth editing the article over. I mean, ultimately it's a matter of semantics. Still, my opinion is that it's inaccurate. 24.252.141.94 (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We males do have breast fat (but normally and hopefully not as much), but I would not necessarily classify what are embedded in the fat as true mammary glands, even inactive ones. Contrary to popular belief, males who develop feminine-looking breasts (such as those who abuse hormonal treatments as you mentioned, and I've heard this in passing about males who smoke marijuana) still can't actually produce milk, no matter how girl-like their breasts look to the eye.

You are right that these structures are not evolutionary vestiges, as milk production has always been a female function. For each individual male, however, they are remnants of the fact that the embryo, when developing genitals and mammary glands shortly after the Blastular Stage, builds they same initial morphology for both sexes, despite the fact that it is already one sex or the other based on the presence (male) or absence (female) of the SRY Masculation Gene (normally located on the Y Chromosome, it produces a sterilizing mutation if it translocates). This initial morphology may well be itself an evolutionary vestige of the fact that the Class Mammalia diverged from the Class Reptilia during the Triassic Period. Most reptiles determine sex by differences in incubation temperature (IE the slightly colder eggs in a given nest will hatch sons, and the slightly warmer eggs will hatch daughters, or vice versa), not by chromosomal makeup as we mammals do. So, it would make sense for them all to have the same pre-genital morphology in early post-blastular embryonic growth. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not a vestige. There was likely just no reason for natural selection to favor the evolution of additional sexual dimorphism (i.e. to remove nipples from males). 73.97.36.216 (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Meant: Fetal development

I actually meant that females develop as a fetus before males. When the Y chromosome kicks in males start off as female. Thats why men have nipples. Pass a Method talk 12:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And you are not exactly correct on that, per commentary made in this discussion regarding fetal development. And either way, what is meant should always be clear and that text, as I noted in my edit summary to you, is not WP:LEAD-compliant (in this case meaning that not only is it not important to the lead, it is currently not discussed lower in the article).

And so that this discussion section is clearer as to what it is about, I added on ": Fetal development" to the heading. Flyer22 (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

To make the fetal development matter even clearer: The sex is initially undifferentiated. While initially developing, it resembles a form that is more closely female than male and will (usually) become female without the Y chromosome, but it doesn't truly start out as female. Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A human male (XY) fetus whose Y chromosome fails to "kick in" doesn't become (or remain) female. He would not develop ovaries or a uterus and could not even in theory produce ova, which is the defining characteristic of a female as described in the article. Also, it's almost certainly not the reason why men have nipples. 73.97.36.216 (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What is this?

There's this section at the moment: "Anisogamous species with gametes of male and female types,(females do not have rights)"

Is that just some vandalism quip or is it some unfinished thought/fact/something? I can't tell so I'm not deleting it, but someone knowledgeable might want to look :)

62.197.243.141 (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Fixed Removed vandalism. General Ization ^Talk 12:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Determining femininity

Since this article state this: "It should be noted that there is no single genetic mechanism behind femaleness in different species, thus it is defined in terms of outer forms, not genetically."

...Maybe results for new scientific should be somehow included in this article? See also:

Chromosome study shows male and female genetic differences:

"We now know that 25 per cent of the X chromosome - some 200 to 300 genes - can be uniquely expressed in one sex relative to the other. In essence, therefore, there is not one human genome, but two - male and female," Professor Willard said."

But I'm no biologist or anyone else having very much insight into definition questions etc, so I'm not going to touch this for now. I felt these are quite important scientific breakthroughs though.--Jugalator 20:33, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jugalator, I am a biologist albeit a 2nd (now going into 3rd) Year Undergraduate Biology Major. The true definition of a female, based on everything I've been taught in both high school and college, is any multicellular organism who produces 1 true gamete and 3 polar cells for each germ (ancestral) cell used in meiosis, and does so exclusively (that last part basically just means simultaneous hermaphrodites are not females). In case this needs further clarification, polar cells either lack cytoplasm entirely or have very little of it, and so they are basically plasma membranes wrapped immediately around the nuclear membrane. In most dioecious (male/female divided) species, polar cells are sterile, and are basically trash bins for extra DNA (so as to make the egg, which is the aforementioned 1 true gamete, haploid).

This is not an "outer" form in the sense of something that can be seen with a naked eye, but it is a taxonomically universal definition for the word "female."

For the record, the true definition of a male is any multicellular organism who produces 4 true gametes and 0 polar cells per germ cell used in meiosis, and does so exclusively (as thus defined, simultaneous hermaphrodites are also not males).

I digress. The sexes are defined, universally, in terms of cytoplasmic distribution. For sterile individuals, we can determine whether they should have been 4:0 or 1:3 based on the genetic or environmental sex-determining scheme of the particular species. For humans, this means the presence (male) or absence (female) of the SRY Masculation Gene, which is normally (IE in all fertile males) located on the Y Chromosome. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Mysterious El Willstro, I'm also a biologist, and I have never under my 6 years of university studies heard it stated that this is the universal definition of sexes, but I find it an interesting definition as I'v always thought the lack of universal definition of female/male sex to be a problem for biology. So now I wonder if you maybe could provide some sources for this definition (I tried googeling some but didn't really find any article where it were really spelled out). I also wonder if you know if those definitions deals with the fact that not all multicellular organisms function like this (in Fucus brown algae both sexes produce gamets using the 4:0 ratio, while some female flowering plants have a 2:1 ratio, and other have a 1:0 ratio) and that we also talk about female/male sex in unicellular eukaryotes that also do not follow this general pattern. Raptorialforetarsi (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial joke

One more thing, what the heck is the part about extraterrestrials doing here? Is female extraterrestrials definitely called "women" and must be mentioned here, or is it some kind of weird joke in an encyclopedia?--Jugalator 20:35, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the wikipedia really is malecheuvenistic? Cone-spir-acy, con-spire-acy!--OleMurder 20:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No Jokes allowed till April 1st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMO4744 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2018

223.225.209.58 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are Females Usually Smaller?

Does anybody know? Blamblamblam 02:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why in humans (and manny other mammals) the female is statistically smaller, but I'd like to point that this is far from universal, and the reverse is true in lots of species. I'ts for example, very common in arachnids and, if you'd preffer a vertebrate example, in birds of prey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.209.109 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's because mammals have more immuno-active proteins than other taxa where females are usually bigger. While this is actually true for both sexes, it only presents a reproductive problem in females. In any given female, the inner part of the vagina has about as many antibodies and other immunoproteins as any other internal organ. Although these proteins are supposed to kill parasitic bacteria (that's why they evolved), they can also kill sperm, which are cells from another individual. So, given that taller women have longer vaginas based on the same general bodily proportions, if a very short man marries (or otherwise does something unethical with) a very tall woman, the sperm have a relatively longer part of their journey to be vulnerable to immunoproteins. This is the evolutionary reason for the general but not absolute relative shortness of female humans, and similar explanations could be provided for females of other mammalian species and taxa. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Male mammals engage in violent competition for mates, territory, etc., which requires greater strength and size. 73.97.36.216 (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

None of this is an actual reason, it's only speculation as to evolutionary origins. The real reason (for simplicity, I will only speak of humans here) is that the testicles boys typically have produce much higher levels of testosterone in puberty than present in most girls (qualification is necessary to account for intersex and transgender individuals), leading (usually) to a larger body size (though with much individual variation, of course). This is demonstrated by the fact that adolescent transgender girls whose testosterone production is suppressed fail to grow as tall as they would have otherwise, while adolescent transgender boys who receive testosterone grow taller than they would have without it. (However, this is only true if hormone replacement therapy is performed in puberty. See here for details.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The size element of sexual dimorphism seems to be related to mating patterns and the levels of violence involved in reproduction. In species where there is monogamy and little male-male violence in the competition for mates (like pigeons), the two sexes tend to be similar in size (at reproductive age); where there is violent male-male competition males get larger (elephant seals). So presumably in humans it reflect some level of violence above that of pigeons but below elephant seals. I'm not sure you can call that 'speculation' because it is rooted in both evolutionary theory and in observation, even if you cannot put each and every mutation in its precise historical and environment context. 78.148.175.71 (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Source for lede does not source it

Currently, we have one source for the lede, which is:

But, read that quote carefully. You might notice that it's not actually saying anything about a female organism, only female gametes. Or at least, it's not until the last sentence, which specifies "most often", implying that a male organism could sometimes undergo oogenesis and vice versa.

Which is to say, we still do not have proper sourcing for the lede of this page. (This goes double because this source was added after an edit that removed two contradictory sources that I had added in a prior attempt to source a definition.) Loki (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added the words "most often" to the definition in the lede to mirror the wording here. I think we could still use better sourcing and a better definition but TBH I'm satisfied for now. Loki (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I reverted as this is a misreading of the source. Here is the quote in context showing why:

Spermatogenesis and oogenesis most often occur in different individual animals known as males and females respectively. This differentiation of sexes is known as gonochorism. Alternatively, it is quite common for the same individual to produce both sperm and oocytes. This condition is known as hermaphroditism; it may involve either simultaneous or sequential production of sperm and oocytes. Oogenesis and spermatogenesis may occur in different gonads, namely ovaries and testes, or may occur in a single hermaphroditic gonad. Such lower metazoans as sponges (phylum Porifera) may lack distinct gonads, with gametes developing in normally somatic regions of the body. Whether through gonochorism or hermaphroditism, gametogenesis may occur throughout the adult life of the animal, as in parasitic flatworms (phylum Platyhelminthes). The more common pattern among the lower metazoans, however, is one of seasonal reproduction.

Nowhere does it imply that a male organism can undergo oogenesis or vice versa. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That still means the lede Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells) is incorrect, since according to the source we cite, an organism can produce ova without being female. We could add an "exclusively" there, except that the source would again have the problem that it doesn't actually source the claim we're making. We're claiming that the definition of female is that females produce ova, but our source only says that females do produce ova, not that this is what defines a female. That passage is totally consistent with a definition of "female" based on some other trait or group of traits, where females also undergo oogenesis but that's not their single defining feature. Loki (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to ask biology and anatomy editors to weigh in on this than to debate it. Regardless, Crossroads added another source. Looks fine. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the additional source does actually source this. Loki (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"Gender" in lead

Crossroads, with this edit I was attempting to avoid WP:ISAWORDFOR.  Thoughts? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That link is about the introductory sentence, but in the new sentence you added, we are talking about MOS:WORDSASWORDS, so I think it's fine. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, is the word "either" in this edit appropriate? I do not have access to the sources, but I believe female is often used to mean both female sex and gender at the same time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The term female does indeed more often refer to sex than to gender. That is clear by the standard definition of the term, and is why this article is not weighed down with girl and woman material. I suppose I will look for sources that make that clear, and re-add the "typically" that was removed. I have access to many sources. So we'll see. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, I made this edit, since there's no need to state again that it can refer to sex. And I agree that it far more often is about sex. "Female" is most often used to refer to non-human animals or other organisms who do not have concepts of gender, so we should not equate the two uses of the term. This is a biology article, and we need to avoid anthropocentrism. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This an article about a term that is used most often in biology, but that is also important in such other disciplines as demography, sociology, law and other social sciences. Therefore the article cannot be exclusively biological. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I support it remaining almost exclusively biological, like it currently is. I don't see that it is going to be a rehash of what is found in the Girl and Woman articles, or anything similar. I don't see that it should be. I don't see that it should get such treatment while the Male article stays as it is just because, when it comes to political views (or whatever else) in relation to gender, people love to focus on female/girl/woman topics significantly more than male/boy/man topics. As a medical, anatomical and sexological editor, and one who has seen the community be clear about not giving undue weight to gender identity matters when it comes to biology/anatomy, this isn't something that, to me, is up for debate. Of course, I can bring in a variety of editors to comment on this, but I don't see the need to do that at this point in time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you making the argument, Flyer, that the terms "male" and "female" are not important to such disciplines as demography, sociology, law and other social sciences, so the WEIGHT to be accorded to their use in these fields is zero? I am trying to understand where your perspective takes you. Newimpartial (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

When social sciences discuss females, it's always female humans, i.e. women. This article isn't for that; it would become a fork of Woman. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't address my point, though. I am not suggesting that there is a reliably sourced topic female human distinct from Woman. Rather, my point is that there is a usage Female for human beings, as there is for electronic connectors, that is distinct from the usage in Biology. Currently this discussed in Female#Etymology and usage. Is there somewhere else you think it should be located? Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone truly believes that I would argue that "'male' and 'female' are not important to such disciplines as demography, sociology, law and other social sciences." Female and girl, as well as female and woman, are obviously very much intertwined, but female is broader because it's not just about humans. And, as we all know, the sex and gender distinction exists (even though it's not always employed when it comes to humans). What Crossroads stated in his "17:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)" comment is part of what I am arguing. I've been clear that the Female article should not be another Woman article. It should mainly focus on biology. And, in my view, "mainly" in this case means "almost exclusively." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree with any of that (and everything you say here applies to the current version of the article, so it wouldn't require any change).

It does occur to me that another way to handle this would be through disambiguation: to direct female gender to Woman perhaps and female connectors to something electrical. So either of you feel that would be notably better or worse than the status quo? Newimpartial (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Might be best to keep Male gender and Female gender redirected to the Gender article. I do think it's something that some people would want to discuss. A better avenue venue would need to be selected for that discussion. And female connector seems to redirect to the right place. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it's better for explaining the various meanings of gender. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m a little confused about the whole “or a part of an organism” part

This part just seems weird.

It doesn’t really make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is referring to plants and hermaphrodite animals which have both male and female sex organs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but for some reason the whole “part of an organism” isn’t in male CycoMa (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"♀️" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ♀️. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 10#♀️ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

May need to replace sources

The sources I added in here are not the worst but I know there are better sources out there. CycoMa (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember when you added them and they seemed good to me. Aren't they all academic sources? Crossroads ^-talk- 03:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Many of them are written by various academics and even those with PhDs. But, they probably aren’t the best sources in the world. Sure one of the guys who written this source for example does have a PhD but, LibreText wouldn’t be a kind of source you would cite in an article.

I even asked other editors at Wikiproject for biology and they said it’s probably not the best either.

Also I have stumbled across sources that have more information and are written by more academics.CycoMa (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Still has issues with sentence

“Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism I mean come on people none of the sources cited in this article say anything about part of an organism.CycoMa (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The quoted excerpt of source #3 lists the definition of part of an organism (specifically, gametes) before it lists the definition denoting an organism. --Equivamp - talk 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m the one who added that in there. I guess I’ll have to check the source again. CycoMa (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Equivamp: I believe yall misread that source. It says.

1. Denoting the gamete (sex cell) that, during sexual reproduction, fuses with a male gamete in the process of fertilization. Female gametes are generally larger than the male gametes and are usually immotile.

2. An individual organism whose reproductive organs only produce female gametes.

Y'all misread the source. it's specifically talking about the gamete not part of the organism.CycoMa (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

How does that tell you I misread it? Equivamp - talk 16:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It is specifically talking about the gamete not part of the organism. But anyway I edited it to make align more wit what it actually said.CycoMa (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Saying that it refers to gametes used in sexual reproduction is more specific, yes, but I defy you to show me a female gamete that's not part of an organism... Equivamp - talk 16:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not my point. I just don't want people to be misled. Saying part of an organism makes me think it is say "oh this part of this organism's body female while the rest is not".CycoMa (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

...Such as in the case of non-gonochoric animals? Equivamp - talk 17:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There are species that function as both male and female, they are called hermaphrodites.CycoMa (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. --Equivamp - talk 19:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Says “Most” females have two X chromosomes, this is scientifically incorrect. All females have two X chromosomes. 192.38.130.252 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021

I simply wanted to clarify that sex is not synonymous with gender. Please add in the second paragraph “However, sex is not synonymous with gender Lynx Hellow (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Morneo06 (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Both male and female need fixing

There are sources that mention males or females can coexist in species with hermaphrodites. Not to mention the sex change in fishes.

Males and females are diverse across species. I have tons of sources on this but, it might take me a while to fix all this.CycoMa (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Too much on mammal females

This seems problems to me. Because females aren’t exclusive to mammals. Where are female sharks, female insects, hell where are female plants.CycoMa (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Turner syndrome and XXX syndrome as intersex

Equivamp you claimed that Turner syndrome and XXX syndrome are considered intersex by the World Health Organization.

Do you have any sources for such a claim?

Also [this reliable] has stated Turner Syndrome and XXX syndrome aren’t intersex.

Also according to [Britannica] Intersex is Intersex, in biology, an organism having physical characteristics intermediate between a true male and a true female of its species. Individuals with Turner syndrome and XXX syndrome (or at least a majority of them) don’t have both sex characteristics.

I like I believe you are confused on the subject.CycoMa (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the source cited for that sentence didn’t say these were intersex. So calling them intersex is technically original research.CycoMa (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Might I direct you to the sources and discussion on the article Disorders of sex development? If that doesn't explain it for you, here is a source discussing the history of Turner syndrome and Klinefelter's being classified as intersex. As far back as the 60s, the classification of Turner syndrome as intersex was ubiquitous; the controversy over whether to regard it such much more recent.

As for sources of the WHO equating DSD and intersex, one may recall the controversy over just that wrt the ICD-11.

Per BRD, I ask that you self-revert to the WP:STATUSQUO text. --Equivamp - talk 01:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp also I recommend you read Wikipedia is not a reliable source.CycoMa (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you learn to read and comprehend the comments of the people you're trying to talk to, and also how to properly format and order talk page comments. --Equivamp -

talk 02:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record I placed this comment right so I can respond to your statement about the DSD article. Also I understand what y’all are trying to say, I’m just trying to take me time and not rush anything.CycoMa (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You claimed both XXX syndrome and Turner syndrome are considered intersex to WHO. And I don’t see any mentions of that source saying WHO thinks TS or XXX syndrome are intersex.CycoMa (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, way to ignore my entire comment, dude. --Equivamp - talk 01:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Your own source stated that there is no consensus on what intersex is as well.CycoMa (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp you don’t have to join this discussion and don’t I wouldn’t touch the article until other editors are okay with this. But, didn’t you say Turner syndrome being intersex has some controversy? Didn’t WP:VOICE say not to treat Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

So shouldn’t we fix up this article to mention there is controversy over classification of intersex? Or does it depend on how controversial the subject is?CycoMa (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: At this point I'm no longer certain what the contested text even says nor what you want it to say. But no, this article should not be used as a WP:COATRACK for discussion of the classification of certain conditions as intersex conditions. --Equivamp - talk 01:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Equivamp: my point was that I don’t think it’s appropriate for this article to mention that Turner or XXX syndrome are intersex.

One, as you have stated there is indeed controversy over them being classified as such. Unless Turner syndrome or XXX syndrome are widely accepted classified as intersex, calling them such is inappropriate here.

Second, those conditions don’t even fit the definition I presented at the top of this discussion. Don’t get me wrong the source you presented is indeed reliable but, it doesn’t say how many clinicians or scholars classify Turner syndrome are intersex.

Plus the article on male mentions XX males but doesn’t mention intersex.CycoMa (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

-sche can you please join in on the discussion so we can reach consensus.CycoMa (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added two sources which address the initial concern about the existing sources not calling Turner syndrome intersex. I've also now broken the sentence into two sentences to address the concern about SNYTH. (By doing so, I've also partially reverted the bold edit that dropped "intersex".) -sche (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay that fixes it up a bit. However, changing it to that makes the mention of intersex a little unrelated.

Also I’m not entirely sure the source you presented has knowledge on the topic from a medical (or at least with the more physical health) or a biological perspective.CycoMa (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

But, anyway I don’t feel y’all are truly understanding why arguments.CycoMa (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

women

why? 83.171.3.16 (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Definition of female

See Talk:Woman#Definition_of_a_woman for question about how to define woman and female. --MGA73 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

New discussions on female (gender)

See female (gender) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender) The void century (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Springee, @Mathglot, @Kolya Butternut, @Tewdar, @Amanda A. Brant, @LokiTheLiar, @RoxySaunders, @Masterhatch since you have been involved in the recent discussions here but haven't weighed in on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender) The void century (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Should this article be disambiguated?

On the woman article talk page, there has been significant controversy regarding the lede and defining woman as "an adult female human". That lede links to this article which is entirely about biological sex, while the word "female" in that definition of woman often refers to gender and is meant to be gender-inclusive. It might be appropriate to disambiguate this article so that it links to Adult Female (Gender), Child Female (Gender) and Female. I'm wondering what the potential issues would be with this or if it would be WP:UNDUE. The void century (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, I see there's already a disambiguation, but I'm suggesting having the main article be a disambiguation and this article be renamed Female (Sex) The void century (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed UNDUE because the vast majority of the sources on "female" are about the sex, usually not even being about humans but other living things. The gender meaning is still covered here, even in the lead. And "adult female" and "child female" are the same gender. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok so you're saying "adult female" and "child female" are the same gender, but Female is too heavily focused on sex in the sources to rationalize disambiguating, yet there is an obvious distinction between female article (biological sex) and Woman and Girl (female gender). If all that is true, then one or more of the following should probably happen:

1. woman and girl (as well as man and boy) should be combined into one Female (gender) article to make it clear that's the distinction wikipedia has decided to follow between Woman and Female.

2. Woman lede (and girl, man, boy) should be edited to include "Woman (also known as [adult] Female)".

3. Woman (and girl, man, boy) should be edited to unlink from female in its lead, but then have an additional line "For biological sex, see female" like many articles that have multiple meanings.

4. The lede of woman (and girl, man, boy) should edit their ledes to clarify that woman (the adult female gender) is a complex cultural concept that has multiple meanings and isn't simply an "adult female human".

Any of the above changes would clarify the intention of wikipedia in separating woman (adult female gender) and female (biology) The void century (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, the sources on these topics do not separate "woman" as a term for gender and "female" as a term for biology. Even the sources on the Sex and gender distinction fail to do so consistently. I know this leaves us with an awkward Venn diagram of article content, but Wikipedia is supposed to follow rather than lead its sources.

The one of your proposals that I do find helpful is 3, which does a better job of articulating the relevance of Female to the Woman article than does the current (problematic) text. Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree about #3 and I think it would be a good compromise solution. The void century (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not how we do inline links - we don't interrupt text with "see other article" phrases like that. Implying that "woman" has nothing to do with biological sex is biased text and a major change in meaning. And the "female" article we are on here mentions both meanings in its lead. This is simply not a problem, and discussion on the same issue should not be split between multiple pages. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking through the archives of talk:woman, female article being the problem is brought up often among editors who don't want to change the lede of woman. That seems like a rationale to split the discussion and decide on editing either the female article (which won't happen via the woman talk page) or the woman article.

On your point about this article mentioning the "gender" meaning, it feels like an afterthought, since it's the last line of the lead. That has multiple implications for readers, but a major one is it doesn't show up on page previews. If the gender line was moved immediately after the lede sentence so it showed up on previews, that would make the lede of woman less of a problem, but that's probably not going to happen because it would give the line WP:UNDUE in this article. Thus the issue stands that the lede of woman gives a false impression of what a woman is, and I agree that this discussion should be on woman.

My intention is not to imply that "woman" has nothing to do with biological sex. My intention is to create WP:BALANCE between biological sex and gender in the meaning of woman. I certainly respect your perspective as someone who has been involved with this discussion much longer than I have, but unlinking female seems to be the idea with the most support. That doesn't mean we need to add the line "For biological sex, see female." (though it sounds like unlinking has already been voted on in the past, so it's very possible that consensus hasn't changed).

I hear you that the lede of the woman page reflects the most common definition found in dictionaries. I agree that dictionaries are a reliable source for the common usage of a word, but they are not the only source and don't negate many decades of scholarship in fields like psychology, sociology, gender studies, etc. Nor do they negate social developments that have expanded the meaning of the word, such that major health organizations like WHO recognize the importance of both gender and biological sex.

In WP:UNDUE: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Dictionaries, for the most part, represent common usage of a word, not necessarily the consensus among scholars and other reliable sources. The importance of gender is well established and accepted fact based on the sources cited in practically every article on wikipedia that cover gender-related topics, such as Gender, Sex and Gender Distinction, Gender Expression, Gender Identity. These articles are not WP:FRINGE theories, they are presented as fact, and so the question becomes, how much weight should Gender have in a lede of Woman? I think it should at least be made clear that the concept of Woman involves both biological sex and gender. The void century (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi again Tvc. Do note that except in a handful of circumstances, the Wikipedia community rarely prefers decisions for the sheer virtue of being a good compromise between opposing editorial viewpoints. Our goal is reflecting consensus and adhering to the Five Pillars (themselves the result of consensus). If we choose the middle ground every time, we would have a half-factual, half-pseudoscientific, half-racist, half-encyclopedia.

That said, several editors (including myself) have now spoken favorably of removing the bluelink to this article in the definition at Woman, as it fails to fully capture what is meant by female in adult female human (not just the sex which typically produces ova, but also the gender typically associated with it), and is therefore misleading. It may be worthwhile to revisit that as its own discussion at Talk:Woman.

The status-quo view is (as Crossroads said) that this article's scant reference to gender in humans makes this non-problematic. I do agree with him that a hatnote would be a much more disruptive way of putting it. I'm not fully satisfied by the current text there either, but I don't think it actively de-legitimizes transfeminism either. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 01:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

In hindsight, I'm not quite sure why I said this. I think the judicious application of a hatnote here to clarify that this article is about a sex would actually be a fairly elegant solution. – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing in policies or guidelines that says that a point in a lead has to show up in the preview, or that privileges the preview in any way. Regarding the rest, I won't comment further on that here to save space and because it largely concerns the other article. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Ledes are privileged in the rules, and previews generally display ledes, so my argument is an extension of that. And I don't think there's a rule saying that we shouldn't consider something important when there's a good argument for it. That's kind of the intention of WP:IAR. AFAIK, previews didn't exist when many of the rules were written. The void century (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal that this should be a disambiguation page. In current usage "female" and "woman" both may refer to the gender identity that is the opposite of male; see for example Merriam-Webster's definition of "female"[1]. There is no evidence that the "[someone] that produces ova" is even the most common definition of "female". When applied to humans the term typically primarily refers to those who are women or girls in a social sense. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent change to lead sentence

Newimpartial, please follow NOCON when making edits. The recent change to the article lead gives undue weight to the second of seven possible definitions listed by MW [2]. It is not clear that this particular definition is shared by other prominent dictionaries thus giving it this much weight in the opening sentence of the article is UNDUE. Please self revert and wait for consensus to make this change. Pinging @Mathglot and Amanda A. Brant: as involved editors. Springee (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not inclined to do that. Since this is part of a large issue, that has been discussed in the context of this article, Woman and Trans woman over a number years - and since the OWNers of this article are among the main stakeholders that have protected the current, unsatisfactory, status quo - I would rather shake things up in the spirit of WP:BRD at the present time. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case then I would suggest starting a talk thread. Per CONSENSUS policy this change should be reverted until consensus exists for the change. If you aren't willing to discuss the change to build consensus then the change should be reverted. Springee (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your having opened the Talk section for me. :) Newimpartial (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With respect to the edit summaries given as justifications, the first, "Not sure why one of the most frequent used of "female" in English would he unDUE for the lead paragraph" doesn't appear correct. If the "gender of an individual that is the opposite gender identity of male" is the most common use why was it just added to one dictionary a few days back and then only as the second definition? With regards to the second restoration, "The usage of "female" for legal and social gender has been around for hundreds of years ", again it's not clear how that justifies relying on a change in definition that is just days old. Springee (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

From these comments, one might think you had not read the many discussions of the lead sentences (and wikilinks) of Woman and Trans woman, as well as this article, that have bedeviled these talk pages for several years. Newimpartial (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If you think those are arguments that support these changes then make them here. You can't expect editors to go to other article talk pages to understand why a change was restored here. Springee (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am hoping for other editors to step in with the crosswalks among those discussions, but if needed I will post some appropriate links and notices later. Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Poking my head in to say I'm mostly behind Newimpartial for largely the reasons mentioned by Amanda Brant. This page has been out of step with how other pages (and, for that matter, most English speakers) use the word "female" for a long time now, and it's high time someone fixed it. My only objection is that the resulting sentence is IMO quite awkward. Loki (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I gotta say, Newimpartial, your bold edit needs concensus. I'm with Springee. Masterhatch (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Many of the editors on the Talk:Woman page, including Mathglot, have said that it's not the job of the woman page to define female, and the lede of female should be fixed separately. I've personally been combing through many reliable sources (here's a small representation) in relation to this topic, and most of them use the term female in relation to gender. Some made a distinction between "female" being used for biology and "woman" being used for gender, but most did not. The vast majority of reliable sources (psychology, health, legal, academia) use the word female interchangeably with "female gender". The void century (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A definition of "female" as only someone or something "that produces ova" is not neutral, not encyclopedic and directly contradicts what is clearly the most recognised, established use of "female" when applied to humans, namely someone who has the social identity of a female and is typically perceived as female by other people (it is very rare for anyone to have the opportunity to examine someone capability to "produce ova"). In addition, such a definition, that omits the more widespread social definition, is dangerously close to the talking points of the far-right anti-trans/anti-gender movement. The social definition of both woman and female has been around since time immemorial, its inclusion is non-controversial, and it is totally unacceptable for a general article on "female" to omit it. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, this article has recognized "female" in relation to gender in a tag-on paragraph at the end of the lead section, for quite some time. To again be fair, though, it is clear from discussion on Talk:Woman and Talk:Trans woman that this treatment is unsatisfactory to essentially all parties, albeit for a variety of reasons. The fact that neither editor who revered today's addition to the lead[3] [4] even recognized that the new addition specified a statement that is already elsewhere in the lead - and unmistakably improves the sourcing - inadvertently sheds light on problems with the status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If that content is already elsewhere in the lead then why add it to the opening sentence? I didn't say it shouldn't be in the lead at all just not in the opening sentence. To keep in mind the ONUS is on those making the change. Springee (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As long as this content is later in the lead, and not in the opening sentence, Wikipedia will be fair game for disruptive Talk page irruptions like this one, this one, this one and this one - and I am confining my examples to July of 2022! Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

How is that a policy based reason for this change? Also, it appear the admin boards are addressing that issue. Springee (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone specifically, but what about the ONUS on those who initially created/edited these pages? Early editors made a distinction that Woman/Girl and Man/Boy pages cover gender+biology while Female/Male pages are about biological sex. That has given a procedural advantage to editors who support the current framing, making it much harder to change these pages (they've essentially been grandfathered in to the system). In all these years, has anyone compiled reliable secondary sources to prove WP:DUE in the framing of these pages? Or do we just assume that dictionaries are the most reliable sources?

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you read reliable secondary sources beyond dictionaries, you'll see that the word female is commonly (almost universally) used in relation to gender or gender+sex, with the exception of certain fields like biology, and some feminist thinking that distinguishes between woman/girl and female. The gender usage has equal weight to the biology usage and should be included front and center. The void century (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If you read reliable secondary sources beyond dictionaries, you'll see that the word female is commonly (almost universally) used in relation to gender or gender+sex, with the exception of certain fields like biology, and some feminist thinking that distinguishes between woman/girl and female. The gender usage has equal weight to the biology usage and should be included front and center. Uh, source? I would say the vast majority of academic articles use "female" strictly in the biological sense. JoelleJay (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If you believe this to be true, then you don't seem to be familiar with academic articles outside of biology and medicine. Newimpartial (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Springee, much as I believe it to be the job of dramaboards to "fix" editor behaviour, when I am able to link four discussions in the last three weeks, started by different editors, all arising from this issue, that points to an underlying content problem. And intractable, underlying content problems are one of the applications for which the WP:IAR pillar is appropriate. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

IAR has a limit, you have to be fixing a problem. Consensus here doesn't say you have fixed a problem. To that end it would help if you explained what the problem is and how this change would fix it. Not that any of that overrides concerns like WEIGHT and CONSENSUS. Springee (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe a concensus has been reached in this discussion, Springee? If so, what do you believe that consensus to be?

My purpose in contributing to this discussion is to arrive at consensus, not to pretend that one currently exists (which I believe it does not).

My "problem statement", if that's what you're asking for, is that the placement of the gender link at the end of the lead section encourages disruption in other articles, as editors ignore (innocently or willfully) the full content of this article when they interpret the hyperlink. I am not sure whether this compromise by Kolya would actually prevent further disruption, but it seems like a clear improvement over the status quo ante'. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, but the first paragraph of the lead section and the first sentence within that paragraph are also supposed to succinctly summarise what the article is about. Thus, it's not sufficient to have something about gender much later in the article when it's probably the predominant usage with respect to humans. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of the article is not about the gender aspect. Also, why are we using that particular definition vs some other? Why not the more straightforward definition from the American Heritage Dictionary [5], "A woman or girl."? What about Random House (1997 ed), "of, relating to, or characteristic of a girl or woman" or the Oxford dictionary [6], "being a woman or a girl". If we are going to use a definition that ties this back to gender identity then why not use the obvious vs the convoluted one that doesn't seem consistent across dictionaries? Springee (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Because none of those definitions fully reflect the proportional usage of female in reliable sources-- WP:NPOV. I'd be open to using the previous phrasing: "In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender." , but I agree with the others that the gender meaning should be in the first paragraph instead of the end of the lead section. The void century (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Then why reference any dictionary definition? This seems rather selective. Also, I'm not sure that "opposite male" is a common language usage. Springee (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not about common language usage, it's about common usage in reliable sources. The reason editors like myself have sought out dictionary definitions in the first place is because editors like yourself have claimed that the lede needs to draw from dictionaries. But dictionaries should be a non-issue. They are only one type of reliable source among a multitude. The void century (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As I'm not a long time editor of this page please don't presume to suggest "editors like me" have asked for anything. Springee (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that was bad wording. I didn't intend to single you out. The void century (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the Merriam-Webster definition is just more in depth which is fine because it's still concise. However Lexico has a good basic definition: "Relating to women or the female gender."[7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the Lexico definition is much better. It's straightforward but also covers both the human sex and gender identity aspects thus it is inclusive of a trans woman when saying "group of females" but also doesn't define by using the negative of the opposite. Would editors oppose that definition instead? Springee (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm ok with the Lexico definition instead of MW. The void century (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I could live with that, but I will point out (bitchily) that "opposite of male" has the advantage of avoiding the recursion problems editors keep bringing up on Woman and Trans woman. Saying "women or the female gender" avoids specifying whether "women" or "the female gender" are synonyms or two (at least partially) distinct meanings: an ambiguity that might be fine for a dictionary, but doesn’t seem ideal in an encyclopedia given the degree of hermeneutical hostility towards which this topic is prone. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I might agree. The Merriam-Webster definition is more clear. What is the argument against it? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point. I'm ok with either Merriam-Webster or Lexico The void century (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Huh. I always thought this article was about female sex. But apparently, it is actually about the word "female."  Tewdar  20:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The proposal (in the previous section of this Talk page) to disambiguate "Female" didn't go anywhere, so we are where we are. As long as there is a set of editors intent to exclude "female as a gender" from the links used, e.g., in the first sentence of Woman, this issue will continue to produce contention. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we could revert to the last good version until the contention is settled?  Tewdar  20:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
      • WP:IAR, dammit. Let's fix this soccer. (I am done with the STONEWALLING.)Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Why not make this article about Female (sex), and make new articles for the other uses?  Tewdar  20:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
          • I would support Female (sex) and Female (gender), and in fact that structure would reflect the thinking I have expressed on-wiki for several years. But that doesn't change the fact that such proposals keep being shot down and so week retain an entirely unsatisfactory status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
            • I'd support that.  Tewdar  20:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
              • I mean, Female (gender) could start out as an umbrella article for Women and Girls and could also have a historiography section rooted in Gender and Sex and gender distinction. This might not be daft. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
                • I'd support that The void century (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
        • I reverted it to the stable-ish version anyway. I don't think we can make changes like this without discussion, rules or no.  Tewdar  20:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
          • There have been many years of discussion on this topic on Talk:Woman, where many editors have said that female page should be fixed to reflect the gender meaning. This is not coming out of nowhere. Creating Female (Gender) is an option but I feel like that's opening a whole new can of worms. The void century (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Tewdar, if you meant to do so procedurally, rather than out of conviction that the version you reinstated is better, I would ask you to reconsider. The discussion is taking place now, and the live version of the article was evolving. If this becomes an opportunity for this article's OWNers to STONEWALL until chances are made, we will just be stuck for another year or two. After all the complaining I've heard for you about the status quo of other articles, I'm surprised to see you reinstating it here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
            • You (plural) are trying to change an article about female sex into an article about the word 'female'. If that becomes the consensus then so be it, but I suspect an RfC will be necessary. You didn't see me trying to change the accursed Cultural Marxism article without discussion, did you?  Tewdar  20:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
              • You want me to bring the accursed diffs? Because I can do that. I reverted some of them, remember?
              • Anyway, I am not trying to change this article into an article about a word - it was already (partly) that (or at least, an article that extended beyond biology) before I was involved. And moving a tiny bit of content from this article to Female (gender) could probably be done without an RfC; even a disambiguation topnote might not require that much formality. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
                • I created the page Female (gender). Please feel free to edit and improve. I'm exhausted from arguing about this for over a week, so I'm probably going to step away for a few days. The void century (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
                  • Sounds good.  Tewdar  22:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
                • Not really sure what exactly you're on about, or why it's relevant, but feel free to post those diffs.  Tewdar  22:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
                  • Two of your bold edits to the lede of another article, prior to discussion, were this and this. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Gosh. What a long time ago. Haven't I matured as an editor since then.  Tewdar  22:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Plus, that's not an example of me trying to change what the entire article is about.  Tewdar  22:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Many other editors do not agree that any recent edit to Female was trying to change what the entire article is about.

And I have no comment on editorial maturity today. Ask again tomorrow. :p Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't look at this talk page 😂  Tewdar  22:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Tewdar, what precisely are you opposing in this version? The article is already about both female sex and gender...which is what female is about.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The article is already about both female sex and gender - There is (or was) a token reference to gender, which I saw as more of a disambiguator, rather that an integral part of this article's content.  Tewdar  22:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
    • It was in the lead. But that doesn't clarify why you oppose more than a "token reference" to gender? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I oppose more than a token reference in this article because I was under the impression that this article was about the female sex. But not to worry, there's a brand new Female (gender) article that you can all Butlerize all you want.  Tewdar  22:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Oh. Wait. No there isn't?  Tewdar  23:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
          • It was turned into a redirect by @CollectiveSolidarity:, but the base version that The void century created is still in the edit history. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
            • Sideswipe9th, I tried to covert it into a redirect, because it looked substantially similar to Female gender. Is there a discussion going on about this? If so, I want nothing to do in this sanctions-heavy area. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
              • Short answer, yes. There seems to be a rough consensus to start Female (gender). Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
              • Female gender isn't an article though. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC
        • That doesn't really work because Woman is defined as adult female human, where female means sex or gender, so female should redirect to an article which means both. The newer version really does not go into much depth about gender, so I don't understand your objection. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
          • We can work on the text of Woman once we have a proper article at Female (gender). The version you've seen is essentially a stub, but I have no doubt we'll be able to do quite a bit better than the current gender content at Female. Preserving the ambiguity of the first sentence of Woman should not be a goal in itself, if we can arrive at content that is not misleading (or ASTONISHing). Newimpartial (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Simply link 'female' to a disambiguation page containing Female (sex) and Female (gender) if the main goal here is to retain the fuzziness of "adult female human" over at Woman.  Tewdar  08:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
            • Except that is discouraged and editors try to "fix" such links, per WP:INTDAB. I don't see any reason we can't cover both the female sex and the gender based on it here, given we basically just need to define the latter and link to woman for the rest. The entirety of female (gender) as it exists could be pasted in here and we'd be good to go. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
              • • Which would do precisely nothing to solve the Trans woman-->Woman-->Female problem that editors (often editors new to the topic) raise on a monthly basis. If that doesn't indicate a problem in our article text(s), I frankly don't know what would. Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
                  • That "problem" is unsolvable because it only happens mostly because some people feel the need to share edgy takes about defining trans women. And as for the few that aren't, there's no problem anyway since they just are ignoring the full description of female in the lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
            • I reverted @CollectiveSolidarity's redirect on Female (gender) and added some context for the creation of the article in the talk section. The void century (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
            • I think the most straightforward way to handle this is a WP:SPLIT, with Female (gender) and Female (sex) being the two splits, and Female being turned into a disambiguation page. That might need a more formalised discussion per WP:PROSPLIT if the idea of this is too controversial. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
              • My current view is that there is so little non-bio content at Female that a formal split isn't required, and neither is a disambiguation page. We can add disambiguation notices as required, and revisit the disambiguation page issue when (1) we have some stable content at [[Female (gender) and (2) we have a better idea about the incoming links and plausible click-through rates in different directions. Dumping a disambiguation page in the middle of the topic and turning all current links to Female into disambiguation links would be one of the worst ways to proceed, IMO (not that you were suggesting that, but it was a likely outcome of your proposal). Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
                • Yeah, a disambiguation page while the split was ongoing would certainly be the most messy way to do it. Linkcount says there would be 9,418 pages that would need their wikilinks updated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright then! I'll leave you guys to deal with the impending bloodbath. Apparently I was too late to avoid this junk [8], but I kindly advise you all to be calm and civil. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal by Eek

I am of a mind that this page should cover both sex and gender, since the term is used to refer to either one, or both (even simultaneously), concepts. To that end I propose the following intro: Female (symbol: ♀) can refer sex or gender. It is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-motile ova (egg cells), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction. In humans, it is the gender of women. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The main problem I have with this is that it doesn't seem likely to solve any of the problems for other articles linking here, discussed above. Compared to the two-article solution, it also has the disadvantage of being one article for two topics the intersection of which is much smaller than the scope of either topic on its own, somewhat as though we were trying to fit all of Wikipedia's Duran Duran, Robert Palmer and Chic content into The Power Station (band). Newimpartial (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

This page already does cover both sex and gender, but in accord with WP:DUE, it puts proper emphasis on sex as the main topic as that is what the bulk of sources on "female" are about - as those females are usually not humans. Of course, sex is relevant for humans too. As we do already mention gender, I don't see any basis to try to carve that off into another article, as it is really just a terminology clarification, and most material about the female gender as a gender belongs in woman. More generally, the ideas being floated above would be highly controversial, and should not be done as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI without wider community consensus, rather than seizing on the few editors who are online over the course of a short period of time. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to admit to not having read 80% of this discussion (but I promise to catch up in due course). Speaking of due, in my mind that's the central issue here. I'll just throw this out there: there are something like 2 to 30 million insect species. Almost all of them reproduce sexually; otoh, none of them have a gender identity. (Plants, vertebrates, other animal kingdom critters that reproduce sexually, and batteries, not included.) I'll be ba-a-a-a-ck... Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless I am very much mistaken, though, none of these millions of insect species are reliable sources, which is highly relevant for WP:DUE. But if you want the chocolate out of your peanut butter, Female (gender) is your best bet.

Having reflected on it, this really is a lot like Women's association football being denied its own article because it is part of Association football but not "important" enough to be treated at length within that article. Such nonsense. Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it's more like both those articles exist, but then some editors inexplicably create Female (gender) association football. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What other article corresponds to the content of Female (gender)? For Women's association football, what you get corresponds to what it says on the tin. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The territory is totally covered by existing articles, and in a much better manner. We don't carve out or gerrymander from existing articles to create redundant ones - that's basic WP:CFORK. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

So Positron is a CFORK of Particle physics because it is totally covered by the broader topic? That's, err, original. Newimpartial (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding an {{About}} hatnote

The above discussions moved a little fast for me, but seem to show mild agreement that (1) this article's scope should remain largely about the female biological sex, (2) the female gender and sex are strongly associated, but not strictly equivalent, and (3) where possible, Wikipedia's structure should not accidentally imply a strict equivalence between ova-producing humans and female-gendered humans, given that this is a contentious (and demonstrably incorrect) POV. I think there's justification for adding some text here which clarifies (or at least, does not unnecessarily occlude) those facts. The text of Female (disambiguation) already takes this into account, but given this is currently the primary article (unless it is moved to Female (sex), a proposal I would support) I think a hatnote here to that effect would be beneficial.

Modestly, I propose replacing the existing {{Other uses}} with the following:

This page is about the female sex in biology. For the associated gender of human, see Woman and Girl. For other uses, see Female/Archive 1 (disambiguation).

As Crossroads noted, there is an ongoing AfD discussion for Female (gender), so the exact form of this hatnote would depend on whether that article remains as a target in article-space or not. If it does, the following could be used instead.

This page is about the female sex in biology. For the gender of women and girls, see Female (gender). For other uses, see Female/Archive 1 (disambiguation).

I anticipate the phrase the associated gender of human being controversial. Other possibilities are the associated gender in humans, humans of the female gender. Thoughts? – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Presuming Female (gender) sticks around (so far it's looking like we're heading towards a no consensus there) I support the gender of women and girls. Otherwise, the associated gender in humans is my strong second choice. The phrasing humans of the female gender feels extremely awkward to me, as does the associated gender of human. Loki (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It was draftified. And I refrained from commenting on this during the AfD. I oppose this because this article does discuss gender, albeit as WP:Summary style. Gender is a big part of how the human species conceptualizes and deals with sex, after all. As such, it is mentioned in both the lead and the body. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about a simpler

For female humans, see Woman and Girl. For other uses, see Female/Archive 1 (disambiguation).

? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This seems to fall under WP:RELATED as an improper use of a hatnote. There's no need to disambiguate there, and excessively long hatnotes can be intrusive. Just the necessary "female (disambiguation)" one should be sufficient. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Given their closeness, Female and Woman do strike me as topics that could be referred to by the same title or at least that someone could reasonably end up at the former while trying to reach the other. But yes, I see the point, and the existing disambiguation seems fine. Mostly, I think it could be useful to have a link back to Woman earlier on in the article text. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 08:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

excessively long hatnotes 83 characters is excessively long?

• WP:1HAT says However, such an article may be linked if it could be expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question.
• The example it gives is This page is about the country. For the bird, see Turkey (bird). For other uses, see Turkey (disambiguation).
• That's longer than For female humans, see Woman and Girl. For other uses, see Female (disambiguation). The void century (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed human subsection

I had added Female#Human female (reverted by Newimpartial). I believe this would have been a good place for "female" to link to from the lead sentence of Woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

As I have stated before in response to CaptainEek, I disagree. The categorical distinction between female gender and female as a biological term logically comes first, and then the species divisions fall within the discussion of biology. Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Female" is not a gender. "Female" is a sex. The corresponding gender is "feminine".Fahrenheit666 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, because that categorical distinction is made at Female (disambiguation). This article is mostly about sex not gender. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of that. But the long-term solution depends on whether or not we end up with a Female (gender) as an article in main space, so I'd rather not inscribe the species split at the top level of this article until we know what the scope of this article will be, long term. Right now, we have a number of editors arguing that DUE gender-related content belongs here, and preemptively including that within a subsection that is mostly about female sex in humans seems, errr, suboptimal. Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no way we're going to get consensus to wikilink adult female human to Female (gender), so I'm not sure how that potential new article is relevant. The way I see it is that we simply need somewhere for female to link to that clearly defines the word as it applies to humans so we can spoon-feed that information to readers. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have not been talking about where a particular wikink should go; I am talking about the structure of thus article. To digress about the wikilink, I don't know that female (from Woman) needs to be wikilinked at all, much less that a section needs to be created to receive the link. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I am trying to address the issues you referenced here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There's also not going to be consensus to wikilink female to a subsection that doesn't define female sex. It's unnecessary. The "issues" mentioned there are largely from people who are complaining about trans women and aren't going to be stopped by a wikilink because the point is to troll. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

Female

37.63.4.145 (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)