Talk:Gender/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Bias.

It's probably worth noting that almost 90% of this article addresses 0.05% of the human population (or 0.6% of European and 1% of American, whilst 0% of almost all other continents) and ignores the other 99%+. It is also worth noting that this 'gender is a spectrum' thing is new, with genderqueer/gender queer, gender non-binary only as topics and in general only appearing in literature, including non-academic literature, with a frequency of 0.000000027% up until present, with no reference to 'gender' being a spectrum until the late 90's (1998 to be precise is the earliest reference in literature) and it not being a topic of contention until the cultural Marxist movements of the late 10's. Until present gender is expressed as 'the state of being male or female' in almost all dictionaries, irrespective of the frequency of use in popular culture by millennials it still remains the ever present normative function within our laboratories and classrooms within the STEM industries I have worked in. I understand that Wikipedia has a very overt bias these days, and it has come to pass that it's neutrality has gone out the window - but I am asking that those who are in positions of power here who abuse that power to force an ideology across at least PRETEND to be neutral and not have 90% of the article address 0.05% of the worlds population. I miss being able to cite wikipedia as a good starting point for further investigation to students, it used to be such a good resource. Agendabender (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on! You're someone who uses the phrase "cultural Marxist"; you can't reasonably expect to be able to cite a mainstream encyclopaedia in support of your opinions. CIreland (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on! You're one of those who ignore FACTS and only accept feelings as proof!!! The only BIAS here is what those minorities and you try to force on everyone, the fact is that human history is composed of FACTS and not mental illness passed as factual "identity", if someone is homosexual, that's sexual identity and I'm fine with that, but a gay is male and a lesbian is female, PERIOD! But when it comes to genders, the FACTS are simple: TWO is the magic word or if you prefer 2 is the magic number. Gender applies to the whole nature too, on the flora we got male and female gender on the same plant, on the fauna we have, again: 2 genders. Accept FACTS and forget that nonsense you are preaching. But if you want to identify as an ATTACK HELICOPTER, I can certainly respect that, it's in fact the only "gender identity" I can accept because it show how ridiculous those "feelings" are, gender are characteristics, not feelings, FACTS not feelings!--FaustoLG (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the term "gender" also applies to things such as electrical and mechanical connections that have two mating parts (the male with "pokey out" characteristics and the female with a "matched hole" to recieve the "pokey out bit". An example of this would be the typical mains electrical connections found in the home. To neglect the historical and current use of the the term "gender" and attempt to redefine it in a new and unique way for political or social ends, only but discredits Wikipedia58.165.149.119 (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I am shocked at the extent unverified social 'science' findings are being portrayed as fact on this page. To 99.7% of the population, sex and gender are the same thing, yet the page devotes 90% of its time to the 0.03%. Crazy. 51.7.142.210 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of this article is about gender as it pertains to gender roles, and gender in terms of gender roles is what the topic of gender mainly concerns. The article is not even close to being mainly about third gender and genderqueer topics. If you want this article to be about biological sex, it would look very different. It would look like the Biological sex article, which is indeed a different topic. Of course, biological sex is an aspect of gender, and the Gender article is clear about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Agendabender's original comment. As someone who has worked in the human factors field for the past 10+ years... I've actually seen the change happen. Certain politically motivated groups have tried to rewrite history and make it seem as if the gender/sex difference has been the "consensus" since the 1950s. It hasn't, nor is it even now. It only started to become an issue in the past 3-5 years or so. Before that, the terms "gender" and "sex" were linguistically equivalent and used interchangeably by the vast majority of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzzzing (talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart: 95% Gender Sociology Papers Deny Biological Differences

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/26/gender-sociology-deny-biological-differences

Is sociology a reliable source for biological claims? 31.205.66.133 (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I dunno... but Breitbart is Not a reliable source for basically anything whatsoever. GMG^talk 12:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE whatsoever, but you hate so much Breitbart that you will spew lies upon lies. According to your "feelings", if wikipedia says so is truth, so you add your false claims and suddenly they are true because "Wikipedia is the word of the gods, and since you wrote that like, YOU represent the gods"... Next time bring FACTS not feelings.--FaustoLG (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This is true, but wikipedia do not care if a source is reliable or not. It just has to exist. That's why you you'll find just as unreliable source like ... well, just every media of the world, CNN, fox, RT, WaPo, etc. And scientists claims (rememberWhy Most Published Research Findings Are False and only 1 out of 3 of landmark sociology studies could actually be reliable (the remaining being either not that sure, or just plainly wrong). So, as long as Breitbart's POV is labelled as such, well, what's the problem? 2A01:E35:8A8A:FEA0:E41A:AB6C:266F:5676 (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does care about reliable sources. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Strucked edit by sock of banned Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Gender Assignment

This article mentions the concept of gender assigned at birth. This is not a concept held up in academic circles. I propose keeping the article factual and academic and not influenced by social justice terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.6.191 (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

Gender is male and female. You are born with it. 2601:641:2:3D30:6598:B06E:3CCC:F76E (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please express your request in a "change X, to Y format". Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2018

117.226.179.12 (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please express your request in a "change X, to Y format". HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the article, 28 October 2018

Perhaps we should make some qualifications in the change of this article. First and foremost, there is no reason for there to be a section on gender and various political issues, or gender and climate change. Additionally, the gender and science section is completely nonsensical in its current location. Perhaps it might belong somewhere in a section about historical sex-based discrimination, but this is not that place. This entire thing is a mockery of a rather simple issue; gender is almost exclusively, although not always, based on sex. Now, there are people that are transgender, and they should be given treatment to fit within the sex that they identify with, but having sections on so many genders that are backed by exactly no scientific evidence is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Sure, maybe this sort of content could be placed into a section in sociology, and the connections between sexuality and culture. I would be willing to go along with that. However, as a result of the way that this article is formed, I must state that the quality, accuracy, and NPOV within this article are poor at best, and nonexistent at worst. Gender is only the cultural manifestation of sex; having more than maybe 6 (for different sexualities), max, is simply caving in to forces that see gender as personality, not a result of sexuality. Redirecting to biological sex may be a good idea; although I'm frankly not certain that it would work with the Wikipedia community at large, considering the environment of Wikipedia. As a clarifying measure, I would like to state that this is not in any way directed against those of whom are gay, lesbian, transgender/transsexual, or asexual. Those are legitimate categories, and members of such deserve to be recognized in their own right. This section is a disgrace, not only to Wikipedia but actual LGBT communities, as thorough the creation of dozens of labels that have little meaning delegitimizes them in the eyes of many, and their causes are therefore often placed into question as a result. In this way, it is of the utmost importance that this article, and the section that surrounds it, is reformed, as Wikipedia holds a great deal of cultural weight, especially in relation to controversial topics. SuperChris (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I mostly undid your edit because, contrary to your stated aim, it shifted the article away from a neutral, RS-based point of view. I can try to elaborate when I have more time if needed, but hopefully other users will also comment. I tried to retain (and slightly expanded on) the helpful copyediting. -sche (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with -sche's reverts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Women in science under Gender page

It looks like to me the science category is bias with the quote "Although these stereotypes have been dispelled in modern times, women are still underrepresented in prestigious "hard science" fields such as physics, and are less likely to hold high-ranking positions.[114]" as its now well known that the cause is not because of people not allowing women in science but because women and men choose different professions on their own accord. I don't know anything about how wiki works so rather than fixing it myself I thought I'd bring it up on what ever this thing is for somebody who knows how to wiki to correct it to be less bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.56.83 (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Please fix definition, this makes no sense

" Depending on the context, these characteristics may include" A definition based on context is useless, can you please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.182.156 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We have a number of topics that have a term that refers to more than one thing. See the different definitions of atheism in the current lead of the Atheism article. The "Depending on the context, these characteristics may include" text in the Gender article does make sense and explains itself immediately after. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation suggested

Contemporary socialisation theory proposes the notion that when a child is first born it has a biological sex but no social gender.

See-also links.

Suggested:

• Gender empowerment - Remove: Destination is a stub article, lacks notability.
• Gender polarization - Remove: Destination is a stub article, lacks notability.
• Gender sensitization - Remove: Destination is a stub article, lacks notability.
• Misandry - Remove: Destination is about prejudice (is too specific), can be covered by single link to Sexism.
• Misogyny - Remove: Destination is about prejudice (is too specific), can be covered by single link to Sexism.
• Sexism - Add/Keep: Destination covers two links (Misandry and Misogyny) in one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A145GI15I95 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the first three. I think that Misandry/Misogyny (alphabetized this time ;) ) should be kept and Sexism removed. Both those articles are distinct and higher quality articles than Sexism (B- vs. C-class). I's like to point to the existance of the articles themselves: They could both be combined and put into the umbrella article of Sexism, but they haven't. They're notable and distinct enough to be their own articles, and they're notable and distinct enough to be their own See-Also links. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 03:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Bias in introduction and throughout

It seems to me that the introduction is biased in the way it presumes that the feminist/gender-studies definition promoted only since the 1970's, and only in progressive circles, is "the" definition of the word. For example, the first sentence states that "Gender is..." and proceeds to provide that limited definition.

It would be much more neutral (and honest) to at least state at the outset that the original meaning of the word is grammatical, describe that meaning, then continue by describing the more recent gender studies definition. There still exist people who follow the original definition and consider the gender studies definition as a form of forced jargon or a biased attempt at redefining the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‪202.85.51.141 ‬ (talk • contribs) 10:44, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

But Wikipedia uses recent, reliable sources. Our articles on plate tectonics, climate science and extrasolar planets aren't based on pre-1970 scholarshiip, and neither are our articles on sexuality, gender identity or gender. We must maintain consistency based on reliable sources throughout the project, rathet than relying on FRINGE commentators who cling to pre-1970 definitions of terms. Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

l support defining gender as sex in the context of society and culture, and the extension of the word's current use from the use in grammar (per OED defined sense 3.) The current use originate from linguistics, but the current introduction has no reference to gender's relationship to language at all. This information is also relevant to the grammatical gender article. Ellesmelle (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

section biased

The section on biology contains very little references to current biological issues related to gender, and most of it is simply ill or not referenced at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean "Ill"? For the record, the edit made by the above user is here. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Assessments

@Dthomsen8: I strongly disagree with the assessment of this article's importance as "Low" for Gender Studies. It appears you're using a script or something, but I've edited the importance assessments to "Top". Gender is a fundamental concept. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it would be self-evident that gender is a top-importance article for gender studies. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Etymology and usage section

I added some subsection headers to help structure the #Etymology and usage section. As a side benefit, these new headers help point out where the content is weak and could use some expansion in certain areas, especially in #Grammatical category, and probalby also in #Social role. As an aside, all but the first subsection now end with an indented quote, and I just find it esthetically more pleasing when an indented quotations is embedded in the middle of a subsection, rather than ending it; but that's more a question of style. Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"In the traditions of cultures dominated by languages in which there are gender pronouns."

Ellesmelle, regarding this and this, it's WP:Synthesis, the wording is odd (to me anyway), and it's not needed. "Traditionally" works fine. Further, your text is focused on gender pronouns, but the sentence is focused on "people who identify as men or women" and those who "use masculine or feminine gender pronouns." Are you suggesting that there are no genders and there is no gender binary in "cultures where there are no gender pronouns"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I see where Ellesmelle is coming from. I've known older Chinese people who switched back and forth between "he" and "she" (in English) in reference to the same person because they never got used to pronouns being gendered, so I get that using gendered pronouns of someone is connected to having such pronouns. However, as you (Flyer) note, the sentence is saying "people who identify as men or women or [who] use masculine or feminine gender pronouns are using a system of gender binary", the accuracy of which seems unaffected by the existence of languages without gendered pronouns.
I suppose the second part, "those who exist outside these groups fall under the umbrella terms non-binary", is inaccurate if taken to mean / include "those who exist outside [the group 'men or women' or the group 'people who use masculine or feminine pronouns', such as those whose languages do not have such pronouns] fall under the umbrella terms non-binary". I don't know that "those who do not use masculine or feminine gender pronouns" are inherently under the non-binary umbrella. Would it work to reword the sentence to something like "Traditionally, people who [blah blah blah ...] whereas those who do not identify as exclusively men or women fall under the umbrella [...]"? -sche (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The wording of 'traditionally' is ambiguous. There are cultures which traditionally do not exercise a gender binary, among which, some do not have gender pronouns. Therefore, it is important to identify which traditions are being referred to specifically, and in what sense. The use of binary gender pronouns are important enough to be mentioned in conjunction with binary gender identity. In the sentence, the weight placed on binary identity vs use of binary pronouns are the same (as Flyer22 Reborn may already be pointing out here.)

-sche gives an example of spoken Chinese as a language that does not contain gender pronouns. Hindi is another example; some of the Hindi speaking population traditionally do not exercise a gender binary (see Gender#Religion and Hijra_(Indian_subcontinent)). l am not suggesting that not having gender pronouns beget an absence of gender. l mean that the linguistic mechanism of binary gender pronouns profoundly affect how gender is viewed. This observation is supported by the content at Gender#Non-binary and third genders.

The use of 'traditionally' begs clarification about which traditions it refers to. Ellesmelle (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ellesmelle, hi. Since this page is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be WP:Pinged to it. "Traditionally" is fine in this case. The vast majority of the world adheres to a gender binary (which is why, for example, men typically have short hair and women typically have long hair), and that's common knowledge. Everyone also knows what is meant by "traditional gender roles," which, although varying by culture, have common characteristics when it comes to what role men have had and what role women have had. My issue with what you added is what I stated above. Your response does not address those issues. Also, your text makes it seem like the gender binary isn't the standard and that it's just those specific cultures it exists in. Like I stated, the gender binary is the standard worldwide. And it typically comes with gendered pronouns. And the lead already addresses the hijra aspect by stating, "Some cultures have specific gender roles that are distinct from 'man' and 'woman,' such as the hijras of South Asia. These are often referred to as third genders." As for -sche's proposal, maybe it's leaving out the pronoun aspect? That would work. I also notice that it states "identify as exclusively men or women." I need to see a clearer proposal. Alternatively, we could change "traditionally" to "typically." And "typically" still gets across how dominant the gender binary is (and also makes it clear that the gender binary is not just a traditional matter, but also a current matter), while covering the minority who may identify as men or women or use masculine or feminine gender pronouns while also being non-binary. By that latter aspect, I mean the non-binary people who identify as both a man and a woman or as in between, or as a man or a woman occasionally, and/or use masculine or feminine pronouns. Or maybe we should just drop "traditionally" and leave the matter at that since identifying as a man or a woman or using masculine or feminine gender pronouns is within the gender binary. Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk)

You make a good point that "typically" may be a better word than "traditionally", and also make me realize that if the lead is supposed to say societies typically use a gender binary, it doesn't do that right now. "Traditionally [or typically], people who identify as men or women or use masculine or feminine gender pronouns are using a system of gender binary" doesn't mean "a gender binary is traditional/typical" any more than "typically, people with red hair are called redheads" means "typically, people have red hair". (Also, there are people who identify as men or women and use masculine or feminine pronouns but who live in a society that also has a third gender, and thus are not using a gender binary, another way the current wording is odd.)

If there are citations for the statement that most societies use a binary (the relevant sentence in the body appears to be uncited, and it's not "sky is blue"-level obvious, given how many societies have had third genders, and especially needs a citation in a page about the topic itself), then what about changing from:

Traditionally, people who identify as men or women or use masculine or feminine gender pronouns are using a system of gender binary whereas those who exist outside these groups fall under the umbrella terms non-binary or genderqueer. Some cultures have specific gender roles that are distinct from "man" and "woman," such as the hijras of South Asia. These are often referred to as third genders.

to something like:

Typically, societies use a gender binary of men and women^[citation] (who often use masculine and feminine pronouns, respectively); those who exist outside these groups fall under the umbrella term non-binary or genderqueer. Some societies have specific genders besides "man" and "woman", such as the hijras of South Asia; these are often referred to as third genders (and fourth genders, etc).

The bit about pronouns which I struck through above could be dropped from the lead, IMO. -sche (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it is WP:Sky is blue that most societies use a binary; it's what I essentially stated to Ellesmelle above. I can source it if no one else does. The wording "a gender binary of men and women" comes across as awkward to me. Give me a few days to look at sources and see about some wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Minority traditions are also traditions. The audience of the article is people of all societies rather than members of what is referred to here as most societies. My contention is only with the use of "traditionally", that if it is to be used, it needs to be qualified because of the reasons stated above. l would concur if the word was simply removed. Ellesmelle (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Even removing "traditionally," I think the lead should still make clear that the gender binary is dominant. Again, I'll get back to this with sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The change propose is to remove the word 'traditionally' as it is misleading, or to qualify it. l agree that removing the word is more concise than to add a qualifying preposition at the lead of the article. l do not know if gender binary is dominant, or if majority practice equate dominance; that would be a seperate change. l would not make that change as l am not informed. If anyone else do not oppose to my proposed edit, l would go ahead and make it, or someone else can do so if they feel compelled to. Ellesmelle (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I had a go at changing it, removing "traditionally" and rewriting it so that it actually said that a binary was typical, since that is apparently what it was intended to say (but not what it actually said). Further improvements are welcome. (I also deviated from the wording I proposed above in an effort to fix the awkwardness of "a gender binary of men and women".) -sche (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation? Ellesmelle (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

So l gather that the other editors involved in this discussion are not concerned about Wikipedia's verifiability policy. This discussion taking place is, in itself, a challenge to the information inserted. l gave my sources when l made an edit, and l further gave more sources when l participated in this discussion. However, the edits that replaced the one l made have no citations, and the contributors seem to be offering information from their own observations (or research). There are also other statements in the very beginning of this article with no citations. l noticed the low quality of the article when l used it, which prompted me to make my contribution. l also wonder how -sche knows what another editor's intentions are, and proceeds to make edits based on that knowledge. By my standards, and the standards outlined by Wikipedia, this edit is not acceptable.Ellesmelle (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

My edit added a {{citation needed}} tag to the portion of the body where the claim of typicality is made, in the hope it would get cited; the lead does not normally have citations, because it merely summarizes the body (As my edit did). As to knowing intentions: I (and Flyer?) was charitably assuming good faith on the part of whoever wrote the original wording, assuming that they meant to say something accurate though they did it badly; strictly speaking, however, we do not need to know their motive, because their wording was inaccurate and had to be changed regardless. If you think the wording needs to be changed still further, please propose better wording. :) However, verbiage about languages traditionally using or not using gendered pronouns is probably not worth mentioning in the lead (hence my edit removed the disputed mention that was there), and a source about languages dis/using gendered pronouns is not usable for a claim that societies don't have (binary or other) genders.

As for citing the claim of typicality... Kevin L. Nadal, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender (2017, ISBN 1483384276), page 401 says "Most cultures currently construct their societies based on the understanding of gender binary—the two gender categorizations [...}", which could be used for tweaked wording like "Currently, societies typically use" (in place of "Typically, societies use"). (Among slightly less general sources, Marie L. Miville, Angela D. Ferguson, Handbook of Race-Ethnicity and Gender in Psychology (2014, ISBN 1461488605), page 47, says "In Western societies, as in many regions of the world, gender has been historically conceptualized and constructed as a binary [...]", and Maria Llorente / Culture, Heritage, and Diversity in Older Adult Mental Health Care (2018, ISBN 1615372059), page 184, says "Historically, in many, if not most, cultures, gender traditionally has been conceived as binary, but the modern and preferred understanding is that gender actually occurs on a spectrum.") I've now added those references to the body, tweaking the wording to one that they support. I also added the word 'binary' to that section of the body (previously, it was only mentioned in the lead!), and replaced the use of 'traditionally' in the body, per the discussion above about the problems with that word. -sche (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that "traditionally" was inaccurate, especially given the sources -sche has provided, but I concede that it wasn't the best wording. Regarding the change, -sche, I'm not keen on "many if not most societies." But I think it works better with the "historically" aspect than with the "currently" aspect since the "historical" commentary is speaking of a time when non-binary genders didn't exist or generally didn't exist. That they exist in more places today than they used to doesn't mean that the gender binary isn't still dominant. We see just how dominant it is every day. For the lead, I'd just go with "most" per the Nadal source. And I'd cite it in the lead since other things are cited in the lead and this is a contentious topic. It's not as contentious as a lot of other topics, but it's contentions nevertheless. WP:CITELEAD points to citations in the lead being a case-by-case matter. Per WP:Dated, I wouldn't use "currently." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding what Flyer22 Reborn stated: The ancient text bhagavad gita epic poem Mahabharata discusses people with non-binary gender, that is historical. Whether or not its practice is accepted by other social groups is another issue. Now the conversation is going back to the issue in the beginning.

There are other groups and classes of people throughout history.

"Eunuchs" performed specific functions in civilizations across the globe for varying amounts of time. To name a few specific cultures: for more than 1000 years in the imperial courts of China, Korea & Vietnam; India; Thailand; Incan Culture. The descendants of these cultures already make up about 35%-40% of the current world population. That's before examining Greco Roman and African cultures.

At any rate, the historical wording (and previous wording) comes from a non-authoritative source given in addition to an authoritative source, so l changed the current wording to that of the authority. 12:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC) edited 10:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Ellesmelle (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding what -sche stated: Here's a charitable tip (reading the guidelines for you): the user who makes the edit is responsible for the citation. You can't edit without citing the source (and before that, knowing the source) of the information. Which begs the question: why are you making the edit instead of the persons who know what they are talking about? In this case: me. Ellesmelle (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ellesmelle:, A couple of agreements and quibbles about your understanding of policy:

There are also other statements in the very beginning of this article with no citations.

That's fully in accordance with WP:LEAD, which neither requires nor prohibits citations in the LEAD. Many articles appropriately omit lead references to reduce WP:CITECLUTTER, and because they are not necessary in a properly constructed article where the body material being summarized in the lead is already referenced in the body where it appears in more detail.

the user who makes the edit is responsible for the citation.

Yes, that's true. You are referring to WP:BURDEN, here, which requires that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That means an editor has to perform due diligence to ensure verifiability, i.e., to ensure that sources exist that support the assertion, before adding the material. However, that doesn't mean you have to add those sources in a citation every time. That is made clear by the next sentence: "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged" must be attributed "to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Editors who add something they judge to be obvious (i.e., "unlikely to be challenged") such as, say, the gender binary observed in all societies, may leave out the citation and still be fully in accord with WP:V. What happens after that depends on consensus, i.e., this discussion.

You can't edit without citing the source... of the information.

No; that's a misunderstanding of WP:V, which says that all assertions must be verifiable, not that they must be verified. The distinction here, is the WP:BLUESKY principle that Flyer already enunciated. That is, yes: WP:V says, "it must be verifiable before you can add it." However, that is not the same as saying it must have a citation, only that it's possible to find a citation, if the material is challenged.

Regarding the section topic, you said,

There are cultures which traditionally do not exercise a gender binary,

Here, I happen to agree with Flyer and -sche about the gender binary being found universally in every culture in the world, and I think this is a WP:BLUESKY statement that does not need a citation. (This doesn't negate third genders going all the way back to antiquity in any way; in no culture would they become dominant or anywhere close to it then or now.) I find it hard to believe that many editors would doubt that statement. Apparently you do, though, and if Flyer or -sche or somebody doesn't mind finding a reference to what seems blue-sky obvious to me, adding the reference certainly doesn't hurt. Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The article currently states that gender binary is now exercised in most of the world -- paraphrase. There is also a citation given as requested; and a citation from an unreliable source removed, as Mathglot and l discussed earlier in time but below these comments. l agree that gender binary is being exercised in most societies. This is not why l requested a reference.

-sche, (whom l will not ping again here), stated that s/he was making edits based on conjecture on what another user wrote, l quote: "rewriting it so that it actually said that a binary was typical, since that is apparently what it was intended to say (but not what it actually said)". Really? No problems with that but l am misunderstanding the guidelines by asking for a source? The obvious thing to do is asking the user making the original edit what the user meant. That's also part of the guidelines. There are drastic differences in these edits than the content that was originally being disputed, which was, as stated in the beginning of this discussion, qualification of what was already there. l know that there is a minimal change guideline. That is why l was requesting more support information in regards to -sche's editing.

Also, my original edit, the one that started this discussion, was removed by Flyer22 Reborn stating that it cited a poor source. l then changed the source to an academic research, at which point the issue changed to my wording being odd. l already gave my reasons for the edit in response. The information required qualification. That information is now completely eliminated from the article.

l find that the guidelines are applied unevenly in a consistent, observable manner by Flyer22 Reborn, l hope this isn't cultural. There are also edits that Flyer22 Reborn made without discussion here at all, all observable on edit history. l posted a complaint several hours ago here l might conclude that the complaint prompted further scrutiny of my actions. --Ellesmelle (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(e/c; @Mathglot) To be clear, my position is the opposite of what you say you agree with me on, "about the gender binary being found universally in every culture in the world" (and about that being obvious): I argue(d) this is not BLUESKY-level obvious, and if push comes to shove, is not even verifiable. (Indeed, to push things further, it's falsifiable; scholars of at least a couple African societies have said that, prior to European colonization, they did not have genders, even without touching on the societies which had more than two.) However, I'm not suggesting that it's necessary to specifically mention those unusual societies, as I think the current generalist reference(s) and the statement they support, that a binary is found in "most" and/or "many" societies, is sufficient. -sche (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: Okay, then I completely misread you on that. In that case, what do you want to change from what it says now, or are you happy with it the way it is? If you think your references are reliable and represent more than a tiny minority (in the WP:DUEWEIGHT sense of the term) of human cultures, then they *should* be mentioned in the article, though perhaps not in the lead. Though in a cursory look through the literature, the first few sources seem to confirm gendered differences in the societies those papers were about, but I could easily not be looking in the right places. Mathglot (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current wording — that "most" cultures use a gender binary, while "some" societies do not and instead have more than two genders i.e. have third genders — since it can be and is referenced. (If there were other RS saying "many" in place of either of the aforequoted words, I would not mind adding those, but I am not proposing that any changes are actually necessary at this point.) If I have more time I will look into what proportion of sources say the few African societies I mentioned did vs did not have genders at specific times prior to European contact, and consider whether to propose a sentence about them in the article body (though I would try to expand the main articles first). -sche (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

References

This is for User: Mathglot l made an edit earlier today to remove the non-authoritative source chosen to include verbatim phrase 'many, if not most societies' in the article's text. The source in question comes from a clinical psychiatrist in a text about elder care. There is ample research for the issue in question in academic historical studies, anthropology, sociology, etc. A physician in North America is not an expert or authority on what happens in most societies. There were 2 citations given for the edit on May 9 by the user -sche who is also in this discussion thread. Another sources from a researcher in this field is cited simultaneously. The discussion occured above in this section.

l also noticed that you put an 'unsigned' signature in one of my statements in the discussion about bias throughout the article below. If you will review that statement now, you can see that l already signed it prior to your intervention, but thanks for trying to help. --Ellesmelle (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ellesmelle: Sorry about the faux signautre here; I've removed it. This was collateral damage from the "unsigned" tool, in an otherwise successful attempt to tag an unsigned edit by an IP in the same section as yours. The very handy "unsigned" helper tool (just click it, and it adds the template with correct data) is described here, but there's no documentation for it. I've used it successfully many times, without problems; however, this was the first time I tried to use it to add an {{unsigned}} template to a Talk entry which was not the last entry in the section, and apparently the tool *only* works on the last section entry, hence, the problem you saw. My apologies. You can look at my common.js file, or the one at the link, to see how to make it available to you, should you wish to. Mathglot (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of the source, I'm okay with it being removed again, following your explanation, and sorry for the revert. I was responding to the edit summary description as its being "unauthoritative", which is problematic for an editor to decide and sounds rather POVvy without support from WP:RSNB; however your explanation here that we already have more and better sources for it is enough. Had you mentioned, say, WP:OVERCITE in the summary and left out "unauthoritative", I would not have touched your edit. You can revert back, and I'm okay with that. Thanks for explaining it here. Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ellesmelle, I don't see why you feel that I needed to discuss this or what I stated here. I did not. I explained in the edit summaries. I did not see any need to discuss anything further with you. I told you that the vast majority of the world adheres to a gender binary. That is not a bias of mine. It is a fact. And the Nadal source is clear that "Most cultures currently construct their societies based on the understanding of gender binary." It should state "the vast majority." But anyway. As for a non-authoritative or non-reliable source, you don't get to decide to what is a non-authoritative or non-reliable source. And sometimes even when a source is authoritative, it doesn't mean its voice gets to be stated in Wikipedia's voice or that what it states trumps a literature review. We can see this with our medical articles. Yes, per WP:MEDRS, we know that the World Health Organization is an authoritative source for medical topics, but we will prioritize literature reviews and give the World Health Organization WP:In-text attribution unless using that source for a matter that is well-supported in the literature and which is not a specific quote by the World Health Organization. Yes, for the Gender article, the "Culture, Heritage, and Diversity in Older Adult Mental Health Care" source, published by the American Psychiatric Association, that was used is not specifically about gender and context matters, but that source can be reliable for some things. And I told you that, per WP:Dated, "currently" does not belong. What purpose do you think "currently" serves, other than to imply that the world will one day not mostly adhere to a gender binary (which I highly doubt)? I see no reason to keep discussing the "most of the world adheres to a gender binary" aspect with you. So I stopped discussing with you. I'm not going to reply in your WP:ANI report on me either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Didn't the use of the word 'Gender' precede 'Sex' as a male/female distinction?

According to https://www.etymonline.com/word/sex?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_23308, it seems that the use of the term Gender to discriminate male and female occurred in the 15th century in early English. To quote this resource: '“The "male-or-female sex" sense is attested in English from early 15c As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous." So to say this distinction occurred in the 20th century appears to be incorrect.139.62.55.22 (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)cbcoughl@aol.com

The entry you cited from the etymological dictionary is for "Sex", not "gender". Gender was used grammatically for most of history. It did not refer to something "becoming" male or female like it is used today - as a social construct or role.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

the section titled: Non-binary and third genders calls for citation. Here is an article from The Guardian that is more that two years old, showing that Oregon allows a third-gender option: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/15/oregon-third-gender-option-identity-law JonesyPHD (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! NiciVampireHeart 08:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Why does it say this article was removed from social science?

This whole article mentions social sciences of gender. But if that’s the case why does talk say it was removed from the category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This could be political motivated.

This specific line. “ Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1][2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender.”

There could be a possibility that theses facts could be propaganda to push a political agenda. I think we should look further into it or find more sources. CycoMa (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NPA: accusing other editors of POV-pushing without providing evidence for your claim is considered a personal attack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no accusations or personal attacks in the statements above. Sure looks like a good-faith voicing of a concern, which is something to be commended, particularly given that CycoMa is a new editor. Useight (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This is also not a WP:FORUM, you need to provide reliable contradicting sources. —PaleoNeonate – 00:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

CycoMa, I see that you are a brand new editor. Welcome to Wikipedia! There are a lot of things to learn to get fully on board at Wikipedia, and one of them is that we put great stock in Verifiability of everything that goes into articles. Even if you think that there are things in the article that are propaganda, you should step back a bit, assume good faith on the part of other editors, and if you disagree with the content of the article, you should lay out your facts, backed up by specific examples, and reliable sources, about how you think it should be changed in order to improve it. If this is just your opinion about the article, and you are merely criticizing, as others have indicated, that has no place on this page. The talk page (like this one) is a place for editors to discuss among themselves how to best improve the article. It is not a place to provide your opinion about the article. You get a bit of a pass, since you are new here, but now that this has been explained to you by several editors, I hope you understand how this works, and that you'll refrain from simply stating your opinions, especially in such stark terms, but instead will formulate your comments in a way that points clearly to some change in content that will improve the article.

In order to stimulate that discussion, and point you in the right direction, what sentence, or sentences, in the article would you like to replace or change, and what text would you like to see there instead, and why? When thinking about this, please have a look at WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and Help:Footnotes. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I should have given a reason to why I think this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 14:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay let me explain why it could be political motivated. For one, the sources says it. “ However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept”

There could be a possibility feminists are changing the definition to push a goal.

Second, there is evidence that Money himself was pushing a goal as well.

All I am saying is to keep an eye out just in case. CycoMa (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a issue with a specific line

“ these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation”

Putting intersex in there is a little misleading because several medical and scientific sources state that people with these conditions are males or females. So I think maybe add some context or a better explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I edited it intersex out. CycoMa (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a neutral and reliable source for your change or I recommend it be reverted until such a source can be found. Useight (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay

Copy-paste of various definition
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Turner Syndrome: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/turner-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20360782 “Turner syndrome, a condition that affects only females, results when one of the X chromosomes (sex chromosomes) is missing or partially missing.“ https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/turner/conditioninfo/symptoms Klinefelter Syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome “Klinefelter syndrome (KS), also known as 47, XXY is the set of symptoms that result from two or more X chromosomes in males.” https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8705/klinefelter-syndrome Progestin-induced virilization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progestin-induced_virilization “Affected females mature normally with normal fertility, there is almost total regression of the genital anomaly in cases of simple clitoral enlargement, and in even the most severe cases, surgical correction of labioscrotal fusion is relatively simple.” Androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001180.htm “Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is when a person who is genetically male” Congenital adrenal hyperplasia: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/congenital-adrenal-hyperplasia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355205?page=0&citems=10 “In females, enlarged clitoris or genitals that look more male than female (ambiguous genitalia) at birth, but males have normal appearing genitals” https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/1467/congenital-adrenal-hyperplasia Aphallia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development#Conditions “Aphallia - A rare occurrence where a male is born without a penis or where a female is born without a clitoris.” 5α-Reductase deficiency: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/5-alpha-reductase-deficiency “5-alpha reductase deficiency is a condition that affects male sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X and one Y chromosome in each cell, and they have male gonads (testes).” Freemartin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemartin “A freemartin or free-martin (sometimes martin heifer) is an infertile female mammal with masculinized behavior and non-functioning ovaries.” Persistent Mullerian duct syndrome: https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8435/persistent-mullerian-duct-syndrome “Persistent Mullerian duct syndrome (PMDS) is a disorder of sexual development that affects males.” Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome-partial/ “Some males have an unusually small penis (microphallus), undescended testes, hypospadias (urethra located on the underside of the penis), and/ or bifid scrotum (scrotum split in two).” “1 in 99,000 male infants are born” “PAIS only affects males, but females can be carriers for this genetic condition.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome “the insensitivity to androgens is clinically significant only when it occurs in genetic males” Mild androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mild_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome “MAIS is only diagnosed in males.” Kallmann syndrome: https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/10771/kallmann-syndrome “Males with KS may have signs of the condition at birth” “Females with KS” https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/kallmann-syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kallmann_syndrome Anorchia: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154292/ “It affects one in 20,000 male births” https://fertilitypedia.org/edu/diagnoses/anorchia “Anorchia (Pic. 1) is a disorder of sex development, in which a male is born with both testes absent.” https://www.theturekclinic.com/anorchia/ 17-beta hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 3 deficiency: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/17-beta-hydroxysteroid-dehydrogenase-3-deficiency “17-beta hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 3 deficiency is a condition that affects male sexual development. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X and one Y chromosome in each cell, and they have male gonads (testes).” Aromatase deficiency: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/aromatase-deficiency “Females with aromatase deficiency have a typical female chromosome pattern” “Men with this condition have a typical male chromosome pattern” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase_deficiency cloacal exstrophy: http://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions-and-treatments/conditions/c/cloacal-exstrophy “In boys, the penis is usually flat and short, with the exposed inner surface of the urethra on top. The penis is sometimes split into a right and left half. In girls, the clitoris is split and there may be one or two vaginal openings.” The De La Chapelle syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome “approximately 1:20,000 newborn males, making it much less common than Klinefelter syndrome.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11268892-de-la-chapelle-syndrome/ “The De La Chapelle syndrome (XX male) is a peripheral hypogonadism concerning males with 46,XX karyotype. We conducted a retrospective study of 18 cases and report the main clinical biological and hormonal characteristics.” https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=25059 “XX male syndrome: A syndrome characterized by the presence of an XX sex chromosome complement in an individual with male genitalia including both testes but no sperm production .”

CycoMa (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. And note the clear inconsistency of terms in the definitions you provided. Male genitalia is not the same as a male person. And a "female newborn" would better be described as an infant assigned female at birth. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You can be born without a penis and still be male and several of these sources mention that ambiguous genitalia happens to both males and females.

Plus I edited intersex because I think we should go by the biologically definition.

We go by what reliable sources say. And newborns with clinically observable intersex conditions are, by legal mandate, categorized as male or female on birth certificates in states and nations where intersex is not a category option. That is a social, not a biological, determination EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with social or legal anything, the sources are medical and scientific sources.

The sources state that people with these conditions are biologically male or female.

Like people with Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are genetically male.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 06:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

They have a karyotype of XY. They are assigned female at birth based on a visual assessment of the external genitalia. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said dude genetically male. The reason I edited in the first place because the line states “ biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation)”

The line was talking about the biological perspective, so I think it’s appropriate to do from it a biological perspective instead of social.

What, then, would Klinefelter Syndrome or XO be? Chromosomes, gonads, genitalia, and hormones are individually not sufficient conditions to meet "male" and "female". Moreover, you appear to suggest that intersex is not already from a "biological perspective". EvergreenFir (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Several sources say it’s the absence or the presence of the Y chromosome that makes you male or female. However, if there is a vital gene that’s on the Y chromosome called the SRY gene and if it malfunctions or it’s defective you become female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:9DBD:4173:2F94:A31F (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the term intersex has been replaced with disorders of sex development.

“ They could happen to anyone, and are actually more common than you might think. You may have heard DSD called terms such as "intersex" or "hermaphrodite" or "pseudohermaphroditism." However, a meeting of international experts reached consensus that the term "disorders of sex development" should replace those terms.”

https://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/dsd.htm

My overall problem with adding intersex is that the line paints intersex as a third sex or a combination of male or female.

However, from a scientific standpoint that’s inaccurate and misleading. CycoMa (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/SRY

“ This protein starts processes that cause a fetus to develop male gonads (testes) and prevent the development of female reproductive structures (uterus and fallopian tubes).” CycoMa (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The citation you give is from 14 years ago. More recent sources make it clear that intersex refers to those individuals who do not fit into the medicotypical categories of male or female. You insisting that the SRY gene or some other criterion is the defining characteristic of a male or female person is WP:OR. The medical community and social sciences that inform their terminology selections have generally moved away from the "male/female" dichotomy ([1], [2], [3]).

The American Medical Association resolved that "It is essential to acknowledge that an individual’s gender identity may not align with the sex assigned to them at birth. A narrow limit on the definition of sex would have public health consequences for the transgender population and individuals born with differences in sexual differentiation, also known as intersex traits."

Unless you can show that medicine as a discipline largely agree that SRY or some other criterion can sort all individuals into "male or female" and that those are the only two accepted categories, your proposed edit would be based on your personal view and that is POV. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: "My overall problem with adding intersex is that the line paints intersex as a third sex or a combination of male or female.", my understanding is that the objective is to differentiate the fact that there are other combinations of chromosomes besides XX and XY, which the layperson (reader) would call "female" and "male", respectively. That is to say, when the layperson reads "male", they think of XY chromosomes and when they read "female", they think of XX. For the reader, intersex needs to be included as an umbrella term for everything that isn't XX or XY. I'm open to hearing other wording for that sentence besides (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), but it absolutely needs to include a way for the reader to know that not everybody falls under XX or XY and it needs to be presented from a neutral point of view. Useight (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m just saying how that sentence was written might make a reader think the term intersex means third sex.

However, that’s misleading for a number of factors. CycoMa (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is some intersex people do consider being intersex as separate from being biologically male or female. There are even countries, such as Chile, where it is standard to register babies as intersex rather than male or female, if their sex is indeterminate at birth.[4] According to interACT (which is probably the most prominent intersex advocacy organization in the US), "Most people think biological sex is either 'male' or 'female,' but it can actually be more complicated... Intersex people may identify as male, female, no gender or multiple genders."[5] I don't think anyone here is saying that intersex is a "third sex", but the reality is that biological sex is more complicated than just male and female, and in the context of gender, that's actually an important caveat. If you can come up with a better way to concisely express that, I'm sure folks would be willing to consider it. Kaldari (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said and I’ll say this again.

This isn’t about identity, social, or cultural.

Various sources agree with me on this stance. Hell the Wikipedia articles for these intersex conditions state they are biologically male or female.

We should go by the biological not view of the topic. CycoMa (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Another problem with that claim is that many intersex conditions are actually pretty serious and do require treatment.

Many of these conditions cause things like learning disorders, infertility, increase chance of cancer, heart problems, low salt, and various other problems. CycoMa (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for intersex states "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies" and that is the point that is trying to be conveyed by that sentence - that it isn't as cut and dried as classic female (XX) and classic male (XY), which is what would be implied to the reader with a removal of the term "intersex" from the sentence. I fail to see how whether or not a particular intersex condition is serious, requires treatment, and/or causes other problems is relevant to whether or not the wholesale removal of the term "intersex" from this article (or any other article) is appropriate. I understand your concern that leaving the text as is might make the reader think there are three biological sexes, but removing it swings the pendulum too far the other way. Can you propose some wording that: 1) alleviates your concern that the reader might think intersex is a third sex; and 2) ensures that the reader is aware that there are, in fact, some complications in the subject matter? Useight (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia article for intersex. However, the quote one that article is from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights which is not a scientific or medical source.

The line that I specifically had a problem with was talking about biological sex. So I believe sources that know about biology and or health would be more reliable in this situation instead of a human rights source. CycoMa (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Please use colons to indent your comments underneath the comment you're replying to and place your signature (using four tildes) on the same line, in order to make the conversation more readable. But do you have any suggestions for how to word the sentence? How would everyone think of "these characteristics may include biological sex (such as the typical male or female, or an intersex variation)"? I think that solves both problems, namely: 1) informs the reader that not everyone fits under the classic XX or XY; and 2) doesn't imply that intersex is a third sex completely outside the male/female umbrella. Useight (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

An even easier solution would be to remove the parenthetical phrase entirely: "Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex...". That seems fine to me. Kaldari (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That works for me, too. Useight (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted CycoMa on this. As for "the typical male or female"? I oppose that. What is "the typical male or female"? So I reverted this as well. Removing the parenthetical phrase altogether works for me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I said it’s the typical one. What is a typical male or female. That’s simple XX=female and XY=male. Penis=male and vagina=female.

I presented sources showing that intersex conditions are atypical if you wish to see more sources I’ll provide some. I’m saying these are the typical of biological sex. You can see that this model is typical by sex determination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/

https://www.toppr.com/guides/biology/principles-of-inheritance-and-variation/sex-determination/

https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866176/

https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/d/disorders-sexual-development

https://academic.oup.com/jpepsy/article/42/5/487/3078071

https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/mmr.2019.10819

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P03079

https://www.amboss.com/us/knowledge/Disorders_of_sex_development

https://www.utmb.edu/pedi_ed/CoreV2/Endocrine/Endocrine7.html

How about this. We change the line to something along the lines of (the typical male or female, and intersex variations)

Would that do for you? CycoMa (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Per above, if a compromise is to be had, remove the parenthetical altogether. And, on a side note, regardless of you trying to explain biology to me, I do not see how you do not get how awful "the typical male or female" sounds. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Remark on citations

The definition of gender as including gender identity, as stated in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the article, is not supported by the relevant references. The sentence reads: "Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3]".

It seems none of the three references listed support the claim that the term gender includes gender identity, and I interpret the first source as actually opposing this veiw. 85.19.179.17 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The first source is one authors theory of gender, but it isn't the only one commonly used. The second source is a survey article over widely used meanings of gender in academic articles and includes gender identity. Also worth noting article intros don't need to cite everything directly if the ideas come from the body of the article and are cited there. Rab V (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like this line should have a more context.

I know I already mentioned this section and I already talked about this last time but hear me out. This line right here states that.

“characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation)“

The issue with this particular line is that gives off the impression that intersex is a third sex category isn’t the case.

Male and female is defined by reproductive roles.

Male is an organism that produces sperm and female is a organism that produces ovum.

https://www.britannica.com/science/sex

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-47829-6_340-1

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990

https://bio.libretexts.org/?title=Bookshelves%2FCell_and_Molecular_Biology%2FBook%3A_Biofundamentals_%28Klymkowsky_%26_Cooper%29%2F04%3A_Social_evolution_and_sexual_selection%2F4.09%3A_Sexual_dimorphism

This model might have its flaws and yes I’m aware that it can be hard to easily classify people as male or female but intersex isn’t a third sex and (depending on who you ask) some organizations aren’t arguing for the whole third sex catergory either.

Also side note there isn’t really an agreement on what classifies as intersex. Like some sources claim that intersex is 1.7%, others claim it’s 0.5%, 0.2%, or even as low as 0.018%.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

Some would argue that POCS or Kallmann syndrome are intersex.

I’m not saying these individuals don’t exist nor am I saying we should delete the line all together but I feel like the line should be edited to give a little more context. It’s one thing to acknowledge a group’s existence, it’s another thing to misrepresent classifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

We've already been over this: #I have a issue with a specific line. It should be left alone unless something better is offered to replace it. And it's not like the intersex piece should be extended in that parentheses or the lead sentence should give WP:Undue weight to the intersex aspect in the lead. Per how you behaved last time, I do not think you should touch it unless you have WP:Consensus for whatever you've proposed.

Also, I reverted you blanking a talk page discussion as an IP before posting under your registered account. Per WP:Talk, do not do that again. That IP is you. You aren't fooling anyone by blanking a topic as an IP not long before starting a new discussion on the same topic while logged in. You at least aren't fooling me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

At that previous discussion, I see a rough consensus, including yourself, that agrees with removing the parenthetical. I do as well. So I removed it. I don't see it as necessary either, and it is true that intersex is not a third sex. And intersex conditions are not really ever called genders. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with you making that edit. The sentence did not present intersex people as a third sex to me, or else I would have changed it long ago. But I can see how a layperson unfamiliar with the topic might have taken it as "third sex." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As for "And intersex conditions are not really ever called genders.", we know that intersex people are often discussed in the context of gender, which is why they are mentioned in this article and in the Third sex article. But, yes, intersex conditions are not called genders. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Why does this article have no mention of the opposing views to "gender is a social construct"

I've just read through most of the content on this article, and it refers to gender being a social construct and presents the idea that there are more than two genders as fact. This is not a fact, this is a disputed view and given Wikipedia is supposed to be about factual information and neutrality, why is there not even single section on this article referring to this subject being controversial? In my opinion, this article is highly biased. --NitroblastDigi (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This quote in the intro is a good overview at how gender is looked at by social and natural scientists, with weight given to different ideas common in different fields. "The social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and gender studies particularly do, while research in the natural sciences investigates whether biological differences in males and females influence the development of gender in humans; both inform debate about how far biological differences influence the formation of gender identity. In some English literature, there is also a trichotomy between biological sex, psychological gender, and social gender role." It doesn't seem like it takes a hard position is taken for the social construct conception of gender. Rab V (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Gender and sex are two different things buddy.

Biologically speaking yes there is only there are only two sexes but since gender is different from culture to culture there is no number on the amount of genders. CycoMa (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Truth

The more you explore, the more you find out, but it gets even more confusing. Let's keep exploring Hido F (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Don’t waste your time with pointless comments here.CycoMa (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

neutrality no longer exists, sad

I see that here is completely ignored what the who says, gender is a social construction, I find it unfortunate that it is not considered that way, we have to change the whole article Hastengeims (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Show a link for the WHO source you mention here and maybe it can be included. Rab V (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand what they mean when they say it’s a social construct. CycoMa (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women,this definition is from the who and it should be up but it's ignored Hastengeims (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's cited at the end of the second paragraph. It's here. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The gender taxonomy section

That Gender Taxonomy section has major issues.

First, it uses only uses two sources.

Second, uses those sources for so called “gender taxonomy” is original research because none of the sources implied or said there is or was a taxonomy.

Third, do any of the sources say that all those elements equate to a taxonomy. Or did someone just combine unrelated sources together to create that.

I may just delete that whole section or fix it up.CycoMa (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

On the biological factors and views

I think some things in the Biological factors and views needs to be moved over to sex. Because didn’t this article and other Wikipedia articles on this site establish that gender is a sociological thing while sex is a biological thing? If that’s the case then the information in there doesn’t belong here and should be moved to other places. I’m gonna wait and see what other people say on the matter.CycoMa (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment more specifically without knowing which "some things" you are referring to. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically the entire section because I believe editors who written that section were confused on the matter by confusing sex with gender.CycoMa (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I am really glad you brought this up. There are parts I think we should remove, although I oppose removing the entire section. As is clear from the title and contents, the first part of the section discusses biologists' views on gender and biological factors that affect gender, and I think it should stay. I would support removal of most or all of Sexual dimorphism; the first part gives a too-basic overview of DNA, sexual reproduction, and genetics and that's followed up by the subsection Human brain which is similarly off-topic and sex-focused. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sex and gender are still connected, even though they are distinct concepts. A lot of things subsumed by 'gender' are still biologically influenced. So there should definitely be a section on biological influences. And anything from this article wouldn't belong at sex since this one is human-centered and that one is not. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads I’m not entirely sure there is a consensus on what gender is in the sociological context.

Didn’t the article mention that what gender varies from context?CycoMa (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Dealing with the controversy above this one is enough of a time suck; this isn't the time for more. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah your right, let’s just put this discussion on hold until the other earlier one is fixed.CycoMa (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Who want’s to continue this discussion?CycoMa (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also most of the sources in the biological section are medical sources.CycoMa (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I am interested in continuing this discussion. In particular, I am about to remove Sexual dimorphism and Human brain for the reasons listed above. I'd add: neither subsection even mentions the word gender. I am not opposed to sections existing with those titles but the current versions seem entirely out of scope. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I saved the human brain section because I do believe it can be useful somewhere else.CycoMa (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Good call. For future readers who want to access the removed content, here's a diff of my edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this removal. Mathglot (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)