Talk:Tomboy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tomboys and Sissies

The recent edits by 172.202.49.165, while containing much truth, struck me as very POV, not to mention unsupported. While it is true that boyishness is often more accepted in girls than girlishness in boys, I do not think that it is to the extent that 172.202.49.165 has stated, certainly not for adolesents and older children; and at any rate, (s)he did not provide links to any studies describing the relative treatment of gender-bending girls and boys. If anyone can provide any resources about this, please do. Writing under the IP 216.77.96.34 (forgot to log in), I've tried to edit the article in such a way as to mention the relation to feminine boys, while still keeping the focus on tomboys and their experiances. - solvent 15:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

About the gay/lesbian connection, in the Philippines, tomboy is the term for lesbian, especially butch lesbians. I don't have any formal citations, but it's mentioned in the Wikipedia articles on both Philippine English, and Homosexuality in the Philippines. The term was almost certainly borrowed from American English during the American occupation. I'm not sure if this article's focused primarily on the American usage, but if anyone wants to edit that in, feel free. 68.234.12.90 04:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

---

"and this has been held up by many gender role students as the "ideal" female lifestyle"

First, who are these "gender role students"? Second, do "gender role students" have more insight or authority to give arbitrary superlatives of what is "ideal"? third, what does this statement has to do with the article? -- Rotem Dan 08:13 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I assume it's referring to a degree in "gender studies" at university. Studying a subject for several years arguably gives you a degree of authority and insight. I think there's a fairly clear connection with the subject. However, it should be attributed to a named advocate:

Si Cologist of the University of Hampshire wrote in his thesis tomboys and boy toys (1997) that "a mixture of stereotypically male and stereotypically female behaviour is ideal".

Martin 09:26 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just be aware that this is a form of argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. -- Rotem Dan 09:40 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Reread appeal to authority. Then come back if you're still convinced this is a logical fallacy. Martin 09:49 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You have convinced me, experts know what they are talking about, and citing a "real" expert is always a true statement. and does not deserve any underlying reasoning to be explained -- Rotem Dan 10:03 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Can anyone attribute all of the quotes in this article, especially the one in the Notes section? If we have a word-for-word quote from some one, we should really be able to attribute it. Paige 14:04, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I found a ref - no idea if it's worth including, though. Martin 14:50, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Martin, I think that's perfect. I really think quotes should be referenced whenever possible, so that does the job quite well! Thanks, Paige 18:41, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC) :-)

---

Sorry for not attributing the quote - i didn't know i had to :(

What that girl said was interesting in its own way - i would have thought being in the "middle" meant that a girl would be all pink and girly girl sometimes and all tomboy-ish other times - instead she's rejected both. i'm not a girl so i can't say wether that's a mistake or not. Can anyone of the female gender give their view on it? PMelvilleAustin 23:51, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

It's no problem, Paul, is it? Or just P? I just think that it always helpful to credit quotes to the speaker, even if the speaker is some one no one recognizes. I mean, that quote has a much different context if it comes from say a Britney Spears as it would if it comes from a Rosie O'Donnell, right? This way, readers can see the source and judge for themselves if they want.

Personally, though, I don't know how representative my views are for other women. But I think that this "middle" is one idea, your original assumption is another, tomboy another, girly girl yet another, etc. No matter what any one else's opinion of it it, modern women are going to behave differently from eachother and often differently from the traditional views or gender roles. I think what this speaker was saying was something akin to all good things in moderation, which is certainly a respected view in most areas. Paige 15:22, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"a girl would be all pink and girly girl sometimes and all tomboy-ish other times - instead she's rejected both."Well,sir,isn't that practically impossible?If you cut off the "all"s it could be.

Well, in reply to the question,your description is more like "sometimes" than "middle".I myself am in the middle.I simply can't stand "prisses",yet I'm not dying to be a guy.. and I can't stand pink, yet I'm not the sport's obsessed stereotype of a guy.And I don't look forward to a first date or a first kiss or anything like that. So what am I?In the "middle"?Someone respond.-Anonymous

Just out of interest why can't you stand pink? and prissyness is not synonumous with femininity is it? PMA 22:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I somehow just don't like it. Too bright. Symbolic of all the too-typical feminine roles. Aye, I suppose prissyness isn't exactly the same as feminity. Prissyness is sort of like being a "girly-girl", while being feminine is just...well, the fact that you're a female. I mean, I'm growing up with a whole group of kids, both girls and boys. We hang out together, sit together at lunch with no problem. I mean, of course we have the occasional gender-related joking and aguments, but otherwise, we treat everyone the same. And all the girls I'm friends with aren't girly-girls either, so we're all basically "middles" together. Like, we don't really like the "prisses". Heh, I want to study psychology when I'm older, don't mind the rattling on.-SameAnonymous

I guess a tomboy is what the French refer to as a "garçon manqué"?!

Category

Why is this categorized as popular culture? Hyacinth 20:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right this article is about human behaviour, not pop culture. I've now removed it from the "pop culture" category. Walden 21:27, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Thanks. Hyacinth 05:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the phrase

Anyone know where the term "TomBoy" comes from? It is kinda odd - shouldn't it be tomGIRL, logically? Just wondering where it came from.

Here are two explanations of its origin: cliches and expressions origins at businessballs.com and wordwatch, Tomboy at ABC NewsRadio - take your pick. --David Edgar 11:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The first link definitely looks very credible. The second link just reads like a POV story.

A Funny fact; I thought the English word might be a corruption of the Japanese 'Otemba' (because it is a popular genre in Visual novels), which in turn is a loan-word of the Dutch 'Ontembaar' (Untameable).

--Zom-B (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Who did Shakespaere learn Japanese? And why did he play visuval novels? Like in this book shakespeare os the term as well. --46.59.138.199 (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

one of the reasons of the occurrance of TB

"a school mostly of boys, hence the tomboy befriends few girls. "

To a large extent, in Hong Kong, TB are commonly found in girls' school whereas not easily found in a co-educational school. This can be explained by the teenage girls in girls school have rarely chance to meet the boys. At the same time, some of them Therefore, I quite disagree with the above issue.

While I don't agree with the statement either (just due to a lack of evidence) I want to point out that the Hong Kong "TB" is a bit different from the term "tomboy" being discussed here. TB is usually accompanied by a distinct style of hair, clothing, speech, and actions, and in every case I've encountered, homosexuality. The Hong Kong term "TB" is usually likened to the English term "butch". The term tomboy here is not as systematic a defiance of gender roles as TB is, nor does it directly relate to homosexuality. 142.151.132.98

Velma from Scooby-Doo

An anonymous editor just added Velma to the list of fictional tomboys. I'm not familiar enough with Scooby Doo to remove it, but I question it. She's something of a stereotypical nerd, but that in and of itself is not an indication of being a tomboy. Just look at Hermione from Harry Potter! She's rumored to be a lesbian, but again, that is not the same as a tomboy. Can anyone support her inclusion on this list? --Icarus 22:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering that Velma always did her hair up in hairpins and wore a short, pleated skirt with feminine shoes, I would argue that she is not a tomboy according to the definition provided here. A nerd, a geek, certainly, but her mode of dress is not at all masculine nor even neutral. In my world, Velma might be considered a tomboy, but I don't happen to agree with this pages description in a lot of places. 71.110.172.13 01:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC) , a self-proclaimed tomboy.

Spoiled brats?

I'm a bit taken aback that one of the EOF links is to the Wikipedia article on "Spoiled brats." Are tomboy qualities generally considered to correlate with permissive parents? If so, this should be mentioned or explained in the article. As it is, it seems to me that the link is included as a not-so-subtle POV expression trying to imply tomboy <:> spoiled. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.196.240 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 August 2006.

I don't really understand why someone added this to the See also section. It may have been for the reasons you proposed, or it may have simply been because it's another category into which various childhood behaviors are sorted. I'll go ahead and remove it because it doesn't seem to really fit. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Causes?

There's a list of causes, what about the possibility that a tomboyish girl just has different interests than most girls? You dont have to have messed up genes to like video games and sports better than dolls and makeup, part of it is just what people like to do/wear/behave like.

You're right, I do think tomboyishness is a matter of personal preference and personality. In my opinion, girls do girl stuff because "that's what girls do", and vice versa. I think tomboyishness or girlishness can also be a result of personal history(like personality). --Apocalypse FP 03:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess they act like they act just because they lack a female model, and I also agree with the teory "they just do what they want" Is that a problem?

I personally think that there's no sense in having a causes section, after all, why do some people enjoy sports? because that's who they are! who do some people like hamburgers, and others like pizza? because that's who they are! My sister is a tomboy just because she just doesn't like that type of thing, it isn't a disease, it isn't a rebellion, it's just a personality trait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.243.50 (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I think that girls act more tomboyish or less so as the result of a few things:

1. Which parent and other relatives they most enjoy spending time with and which they resent. (Enjoying to spend time with one's father and/or brother while despising one's Mother and/or sister, and the other way around).

2. Which gender they are most accepted and which they are most rejected by. (Friendship vs. Bullying)

3. What activities they have access to and enjoy most. (Ex: Having little sports equipment to play with but lots of dolls vs. having a lot of sports equipment to play with but few dolls.)

4. Some biological factors which form a sort of basis for everything else. (Ex: The brain develops more masculine or less masculine characteristics).

5. Personal success vs. personal failure (Being more successful at an activity vs. failing at it would likely result in one enjoying or despising the activity and thus, be more or less inclined to do them). And finally,

6. The behaviors as a result of the above and how they affect what happens with them. (Ex: Acting more or less typical of gender role will affect how others react to you and in turn, how you react to them, further altering one's behavior and creating a sort of cycle.)

I also believe these factors affect how one reacts to the genders (accepting and rejecting stereotypes, as well what gender one prefers to spend time with) and even one's behavior in general but, that's another matter entirely.

Yes, I know I have no citations, but this is what I derived from personal experience and a little common sense. Even if this is true, I have no idea where to get the citations for this.24.118.227.213 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The problem is, this would fall under original research, which is something we should try to avoid. Now, if we can find some sort of scientific expert on tomboys (if such a thing exists) and he already thinks that this is accurate, then we could include this info. Until then, we'll just have to let it sit here. The world's hungriest paperweight 16:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I put it here, that way, others with more experience than me at finding citations could verify or unverify it. And please, do not just say something along the lines of "You've wrong because I say so! F@!$ you!" which I find happens in these discussion pages sometimes; turning them into more of a text shouting match than a fact vs. fact argument. Thank you for your help, everybody. On a side note, I believe orignal research shouldn't be avoided but used as a device to find facts; and shouldn't be believed to be "wrong" just on the grounds that it is original, since ALL research begins as "original". Yes, I know I might just have set off a bombshell with that statement, but I don't regret it.24.118.227.213 10:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying anything like "You're wrong because I say so! **** you!" If that is how it was interpereted, then I apologize. I was just concerned that you or someone else might try putting it in. Also, original research isn't automatically considered wrong. It's just that info on Wikipedia is supposed to be attributed to reliable sources, and original research by some random person isn't generally considered reliable (if at all). Aside from that, I'd have to agree with your opinion on original research, but until it's confirmed it shouldn't be included in the article. That's all I'm saying. The world's hungriest paperweight 17:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't refering to you with the "F@#$ you" statement Paperweight, I was refering to some people who go on these talk pages and bash other people's opinions with little or nothing back it up out of sheer malice and/or ignorance. You know what I'm talking about, right? Second, I wrote my list of causes to begin with to allow others to help me provide evidence to what I think to be true, or counter evidence to it and allow me to change my opinion accordingly. I'm not all that great at gathering information, which as I said should be the purpose behind original research statements. Original research should not be represented as fact from the beginning, but used as a starting point for finding more concrete evidence, as I was trying to accomplish. We will never competely know, (not for a few centuries or even millennia research at least) what truly causes a girl to be a tomboy or any other personality traits in a person for that matter, but I would like to know as much as I can about people.24.118.227.213 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat original research to suggest that there should be a cause at all. As I see it, you have a wide range of different behaviour, but society invents the term "tomboy" for those who don't fit neatly into a female gender role (and similarly for boys). Thus the question about "cause" should be why does society polarise people's behaviour into gender roles? The way it's worded at the moment suggests that there's something intrinsic to the person which is "tomboy"-ness.

Also it's bias to be asking "What causes being a tomboy?" rather than simply "What causes people's behaviour?" - the latter is neutral, the former assumes tomboy only occurs as a result of some deviation to the norm. I mean, are we really saying something along the lines of "Little is known about what could cause a woman to have an interest in mathematics and science, but it may be due to a lack of role models", as if women should only like cookery and ballet dancing?! Mdwh (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To determine the causes of tomboyhood, I think we need to distinguish the aspects - dress sense, social behaviour, intellectual interests and whatever else - especially considering that they're by no means all found in the same people. And the statement "Little is known about what could cause a woman to have an interest in mathematics and science" seems silly to me too. Presumably the answer is the same things that cause a man to be interested in mathematics and science, which is down to the natural diversity of human beings. -- Smjg (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the causes may be no different to what causes men to do the same things, but talking of a "Cause of being a tomboy" may imply there is something special about the causes for women. I've tried to reword it to reflect this. This section really needs more sources - the only one we have only covers a narrow aspect (the idea that playing with boys' toys is influenced by testosterone in the womb). Also, I was under the impression that the idea that toy-preference (or gender role in general) is caused by events before birth is not known for certain, and may be somewhat controversial. I'm not sure that such a bold claim can be settled with a single study reported by The KSBW Channel... Also, although it says they accounted for background criteria, it's not clear how they factored out all external influences (most significantly, advertising for toys which are targetted specifically at either boys or girls). Unless you bring children up in controlled isolation, I can't see a way to control for this. I wonder if there are other studies, either showing a consensus in agreement, or disputing it? Mdwh (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

True, there probably is no real difference in the what causes a girl to act like a boy and what causes a boy to act like a boy. The most likely reason that people focus on it is because being a tomboy goes against traditional roles, which many on both sides despise (but not me, thankfully). Some might even be trying to find out why tomboys occur so they can stop it, which is, in my opinon, distasteful.66.41.44.102 (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Adulthood

The claims in the Adulthood section are pretty controvertial, and without a reference. I'm going to remove it, but if anyone can find a reference, feel free to put it back in. Chovain 12:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove section: Notable tomboys in fiction

This list appears to be a little out of hand. I'd like to see it removed entirely, as by its very nature, is subjective, and will never be complete. None of the entries are sourced, and we have no idea how many of them are tomboys, and how many may be vandalism. Does anyone have any thoughts? Chovain 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the list necessarily needs to be totally removed, but it definitely needs to be reduced. It is, after all, supposed to be a list of notable tomboys in fiction, not a list of every character ever created who just happens to be a tomboy! The anime/manga section is especially problematic, as while one or two examples would be acceptable, it's the most prone to abuse seeing as "the tomboy" is a very common archetype in anime and manga. What we need is a stricter definition of "notable" for this list. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this: Who decides which Tomboys are notable? I originally wanted to propose that the list be moved to a separate article, List of notable tomboys in fiction, but the article would clearly fail the objectivity criteria in WP:LIST. Perhaps it could be reduced to two or three examples to be included in the introduction prose (but reliably referenced to raise the bar a little on adding new ones!) Chovain 13:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - reduce it to characters such as Jo March and Scout Finch. PMA 15:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of doing a citation search for them? :D Chovain 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not move it to a separate article List of tomboys in fiction? That would easily fit with the existing articles in Category:Lists of fictional characters by distinguishing feature. I wouldn't like to see the list completely removed. But some examples should definitely remain in the article, to illustrate the topic. (I'd consider George from the Famous Five serious to be the archetypal tomboy.) --David Edgar 16:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that just because other lists exist does not mean they should. The criteria for valid lists is defined by WP:LIST. Lists must have objective criteria for inclusion. Tomboys fail that one outright. I read a study somewhere while looking for citations for the Tomboy article, that suggested over 70% of female Americans reported exhibiting tomboy-ish behaviour as a child (I wish I could find it now). That gives some indication of not only the frequency of "tomboyish" behaviour is, but also the breadth of peoples definitions of tomboyishness.

Category:Lists of fictional characters by distinguishing feature is a mixed bunch:

• List of fictional left-handed characters has great potential as a list. Lists such as that one can be objectively defined, and entries can be sorted cited (Although that particular list unfortunately has none).
• List of fictional nerds is a bad example. What is a Nerd? Who decides if <Insert character here> is a nerd or not? The talk page raises a few such concerns.

A category is another alternative here: That gives automatic protection against non-notable entries being added (as they need to be notable to have an article), but makes citation even harder to enforce.

Chovain 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While we discuss this, I'm going to move the list to effectively freeze the list User:Chovain/List of tomboys in fiction Chovain 10:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the list is very wrong, in that Nancy Drew is NOT a Tomboy by any stretch of the imagination. She was all about her hair and her clothing styles, things a real tomboy would never consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.6.127 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What justifies someone as being a tomboy?

I know a tomboy is a female that acts like a boy. The list at the top of this article doesn't seem to fit. I saw a girl one time wearing boys' clothes, though she acts like a girl. Another girl really likes subjects like math and science, she acted like a girl. I could list as many examples as I have to. I just don't think that just because a girl happens to fit the article's description of being a tomboy, she is a tomboy. Apocalypse FP 00:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - There are papers in this area, too. I have this page on my "list of pages I really want to improve when I get the time". Feel free to get in before me by looking for a third party definition (preferably from a respectable Psych journal) and update it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chovain (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

The list at the top isn't diagnostic, and isn't meant to be. Tomboys are more likely to wear boyish clothing. That doesn't change just because non-tomboys sometimes wear boyish clothing, too. To use an extreme example for the purpose of illustration, objecting to this list would be kind of like objecting to any references to coughing in the article on tuberculosis on the grounds that there are many other conditions that cause coughing. (I just noticed that using the word "diagnostic" and then a disease analogy might make it seem like I think there's something wrong with tomboys, so let me just clarify that nothing could be further from the truth.) It would make no sense to say that tomboys act like boys without giving examples of how that might manifest in an individual. Clarify if you will that the list is merely a description of traits that girls who are tomboys are likely to have, not a field guide to spotting tomboys in the wild. The list is still valuable to the article. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact still remains that the list is completely uncited when there are plenty of papers out there on the topic. I still plan to clean it up with refs when I get the time :). Chovain 09:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the list isn't diagnostic. That section seems to be worded in a misleading way. I would use more words like can or not limited to. Also, doing boy stuff isn't necessarily going to make a girl act like a boy. It just seems to be a matter of personal preference. Icarus, this is psycology, not biology. I'm not saying this article is a "field guide". I'm saying one of the things we should do is re-word the article so it is accurate and has more sources. --Apocalypse FP 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you're going for now. It probably could benefit from a little re-wording, and sources are always a good thing! I wasn't sure what you were proposing at first, and I think I might have jumped to conclusions. I don't remember exactly what I thought you were proposing, but now that you've clarified it sounds perfectly reasonable. Sorry if I came off as callous or accusatory in any way! --Icarus ^(Hi!) 07:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a little edit(sorry I took so long). The edit just above the list. All I did was extend the last sentence. I'll do more research and change it more later. --Apocalypse FP 03:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. I don't think it really improves the paragraph as the sentence already said, "...typically manifests itself in certain individuals through one or more of the examples ...". Your edit also introduced a grammatical error and fails to solve the root problem, which is that the lead section does not cite references. Chovain 06:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm pretty new to this type of thing. If I'm going to make a change, I'll post it here on the talk page before I change the article. Meanwhile, I'll try to cite references, do research, and etc. --Apocalypse FP 06:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Useful references

There appears to be a shortage of freely available papers about tomboys. I propose that we start a list here. If anyone finds content (freely available or otherwise), please add it to the list. I am hoping to search for hard-copies of these in libraries at some point in the future, but it's likely to be a while. If anyone else is able to get to them before me, could you possibly summarise any key concepts in this table? (Please remember that while it is ok to paraphrase, it is usually illegal to copy the words.) Chovain 10:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Reference	Discussion
"Who Are Tomboys and Why Should We Study Them?" (fee required). Archives of Sexual Behavior. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes=, |coauthors=, and |month= (help)	From the abstract: This article apparently found that tomboys tend to be more masculine than their sisters, but less masculine than their brothers. I'm interested to know what measures they refer to. Chovain 10:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"A Three Generational Study of Tomboy Behavior" (fee required). Sex Roles. 39 (9–10): 657–823. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes=, |coauthors=, and |month= (help)	This is the article I referred to in an earlier post. From the abstract: It claims that 67% of participants in their study reported exhibiting tomboyish behaviour. It also gives average ages that behaviour started and stopped, which could go well in the article. It also makes an interesting claim about inter-generational differences. Chovain 10:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"Sissiness, tomboyism, sex-role, sex identity and orientation" (abstract only). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 29 (2): 278–83. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes=, |coauthors=, and |month= (help)	From the abstract: This article looks at both male sissiness and female tomboyism. It finds that sissiness is a predictor of homosexuality, but that tomboyism is not a predictor of lesbianism. It suggests that tomboyism is linked with prenatal hormonal factors, which is consistent with the existing reference. Chovain 10:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"Tomboyism" (abstract only). Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2 (1): 73. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes=, |coauthors=, and |month= (help)	Only the abstract is available unless you have a subscription. From the abstract: Tomboyism was thought to be rare and not normal. During an observation, 63% of junior-high students said they were tomboys while 51% of adults said they were tomboys when they were children. Tomboyism is common and not abnormal. --Apocalypse FP 07:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I think this article fits to several other categories not yet listed. I just added some myself, but I'm pretty sure I overlooked categories. While the article looks pretty scientific to me, the categories hardly show(ed) this. I'm pretty sure this article can be a part of social or physological studies. Can anyone with more knowledge on the various sciences dealing with this subject expand the categories? Thanks in advance! Syrion 21:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Then again

Since "Tomboy" has a article, so sould "Tomgirl".--66.233.13.77 20:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the thought behind this comment. Right now, "tomgirl" is redirected to "effeminacy". That's reasonable in a certain sense, but...if (for the sake of argument) being a tomboy is not evidence of being lesbian...then wouldn't it be true that being a tomgirl is not evidence of being an effeminate male?

These cross-role topics are being treated superficially, and I'm unsure why that's the case. I'm imagining this has to do with the lack of historical perspective regarding how sexual roles have changed, sometimes extremely rapidly, through history. This is discussed by Evelyne Sullerot in Women on Love, which I always found fascinating.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Occam's Razor

Western femininity is false, tomboys are following proper natural femininity. That is, plainness and ... lack of.. flamboyancy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

that is of course the absolute truth, but could be stated way simpler: Remove everything that is unnatural from a woman (jewelery, make-up, dyed hair, and non-physical illogical traits implanted into little girls by corrupt western society) and you got a valuable person underneath. There is no acting "like a boy", there is only acting logical or illogical.

I'm sure that other than the female body, there can be a biological aspect to femininity, just like the Femininity article says. Otherwise, the majority of females wouldn't conform so easily to the female gender role and there wouldn't be gay males who have displayed, since age 2 or another early age, what society considers feminine behavior. I doubt that most of these boys were socialized to act or talk this way, so there is some type of biological component there. 23.20.10.162 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And let's not forget transgender people, and how some transwomen say that they knew they were a girl because they didn't "act like a boy" and didn't like things boys are supposed to like. 23.20.10.162 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

tomboys

i think tomboys are perfectly fine! who says that girls can't act like boys!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.51.174 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is a place to discuss possible changes to the article, not a forum. Additionally, Wikipedia always tries to maintain a neutral point of view. Same thing with the 2 other posts above the one I'm replying to. Also, remember to sign your posts. --Apocalypse FP 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian connection?

"due to a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism". What in the world is this doing here????? I'm sorry, but, honestly, WHAT THE @#$%?!?!? A connection between tomboys and lesbianism? As far as I can tell, these are two completely separate phenomena (I'm not sure if that's the right word). Does anyone have a source for this? If not, I'll remove this personally. (I'm actually surprised that it took me so long to notice this.) The world's hungriest paperweight 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I've taken it out. The reason this had been overlooked for so long is that the article was absolutely atrocious before ;). We'll get there though! Mark Chovain 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I must state that there is a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism. Many people feel that a tomboy will most likely turn out to be a lesbian. And, in fact, a lot of tomboys due later "come out" as lesbians. I know that there are valid articles out there about this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have sources. Check below (section Copy edit), thus I will return the mention of the perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've added it back, but in the Society section instead, and with different/additional wording, as well as with a valid source. Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it reeeeeeally bugs me when people automatically assume there's some connection between tomboys and lesbians (and I'm male, so don't think it's because I'm one or both of the two). So I'd like to ask you a couple of questions, Flyer:

1. You say that "many people feel that a tomboy will most likely turn out to be a lesbian." When you say "many", do you actually mean "many" or are you implying "most". I doubt most people make this assumption, and even if they do it would be difficult to prove.
2. Do you believe most tomboys will wind up being lesbians? If so, then your opinion may be affecting your judgment on the matter, and if that is so then I don't think your argument is very credible. (If none of this is the case, then forget this second question entirely).

For the record, I haven't checked the links you've posted in the section below, but I plan to once I find the time. I'm only saying this now because, as I said earlier, this kind of thing drives me crazy. (P.S. I was going to say this last night, but my internet connection failed on me.) The world's hungriest paperweight (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What the heck?!! I didn't say that I assume that there's some connection between tomboys and lesbians. I stated that there is a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism. Many people perceive! I did not state that "I" perceive anywhere in that. It's true that that there is a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism, as the sources I've provided below point out. I cannot even believe you turned this into a discussion about me. In the Society section, I pointed out that there is a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism, which is true that there is, and then I added how a girl being a tomboy is not a true indicator of one's sexual orientation, as well as how the people thinking that every tomboy will automatically be a lesbian are wrong. I'm not even going to answer your questions, because frankly, I'm offended. The fact that there is a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism has nothing to do with me. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm backing up a bit. I don't feel that you were attacking me after all. To answer your first question, I would state that most people believe that tomboys will most likely be lesbians, or if not most people, many people. Yes, even though "many" is a word that Wikipedia advises us to avoid. The sources I've provided below show how often people perceive a tomboy to be a lesbian.

There have also been studies on the subject of tomboys and lesbianism, which showcase that there is some correlation (but not a true indicator of one's sexual orientation), as seen with this information:

Much of the psychological literature on tomboyism is in the context of studying the relationships of childhood "cross-sex" behaviors and adult homosexuality, transsexuality, or other gender-related outcomes.

Grellert, Newcomb, and Bentler report a number of associations between sex-typed childhood behaviors and adult sexual orientation, while Whitam and Mathy find such correlations to be comparable in four different societies. Phillips and Over report that while associations between sexual orientation and recalled tomboyism exist, they are not reliable predictors of lesbianism. Kennedy and Davis note the early occurrence of masculine-identified traits among many of the butch lesbians in their study, who felt they were born that way, but not among those who identified as femme.

Whether or not tomboyism is associated with adult lesbianism depends on its definition. Saghir and Robins found a high correlation with lesbianism (70%), but based this both on preference for boys' activities and aversion to girls' activities. When enjoyment of boys' activities is considered alone, the percentage of reported childhood tomboyism among adult women in general is relatively high: 51% to 67% (Hyde, Rosenberg, and Behrman; Mogan).

I'm going to add all that information to this article, in different formatting, of course, to avoid plagarism. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have offended you (whether briefly or not). Apparently I didn't stop to think of how what I said could have been interpreted. First of all, I wasn't trying to accuse anyone in particular (especially you). When I said "when people automatically assume there's some connection between tomboys and lesbians", I was referring to the same people you do each time you mention the "perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism." Also, I only asked the second question because I was worried you were one of those people, but that doesn't seem to be the case, so hopefully we can just let that one be water under the bridge.

I don't plan on saying any more on the matter until I've had the chance to read whatever it is you linked to in the below section (I'm lucky just to find the time to type this), and by then there probably won't be anything more to say. I hope -.- The world's hungriest paperweight (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The only reason that I misinterpreted what you stated is because I skimmed (yes, skimmed) over what you stated at first, and I apologize for that. That was silly of me, but what stood out to me the most was the first line in your response, and then I just started typing after I skimmed over the rest. Once I read it in full, however, I almost smacked my head at how silly I was. Again, I apologize. All is fine between you and I. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dropped by following a TAFI link suggestion. It was quickly obvious why no meaningful editing will be taking place. The article is clearly NOT POV neutral but it would be politickal suicide to touch it (as the paperweight found out) so I'll be moving along now ... caio. JimScott (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, JimScott. I appreciate your interest in this article, and I have to state that what you think is "quickly obvious why no meaningful editing will be taking place" (and it's clear what you think by having posted in this section) is not correct. Meaningful editing of this article can take place at any time, though what is "meaningful editing" differs among editors. I have removed the TAFI tag twice[1][2] after, in my opinion, the tag had become stale. After all, it could stay up there for years without anyone deciding that this article is a "today's article for improvement" for them. I did not remove the tag because I don't want anyone editing or removing the lesbian content, and I strongly resent that implication. The lesbian content is reliably sourced, and this talk page section documents an old, resolved discussion, before the lesbian content was improved (it was improved as recently by indefinitely-blocked editor Insomesia, by the way), and so removal of the lesbian content would not be justified anyway (even though it was improved by an editor who has been indefinitely blocked/banned for years and created the Insomesia account to continue editing Wikipedia). Further, I fail to see how mentioning the lesbian aspect is non-neutral, if that is what you mean by the article being "NOT POV neutral"; it is one aspect of this topic (tomboy), which is discussed in various reliable sources, and does not even take up a lot of or most of the article. It even mentions how presuming that a girl is a lesbian solely because she is a tomboy is inaccurate; if you feel that this should be reflected more strongly in the article, I don't mind at all...as long as the material is supported by reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit

It appears that this article has been bastardize abit. Just tryin' to reel it in a bit. --68.9.118.55 (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

While your interest in improving the article is appreciated, you have removed quite a bit of content without any real explanation. I have restored the talk-page template, source, 'see also' links, and categories that you removed. If you believe that some of these deletions are beneficial to the article, please propose the edits here on the talk page so they can be discussed and a consensus can be formed. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Icarus, I removed material that really isn't related or relevant to this topic. Also, this is really not a LGBT issue related article so that template can be removed as well. Thanks, --68.9.118.55 (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree on both points. The categories you removed are related to the topic of femininity and masculinity among females, which is absolutely relevant to this topic. The categories are all somewhat broader, but they are also all descriptive of this topic. If you disagree or feel that one is too broad to include, please be more specific. As for the LGBT project template at the top of this talk page, that doesn't mean that the topic is primarily a LGBT one, but rather that it's an article which members of the LGBT WikiProject feel is relevant enough to keep note of. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How is tomboy a LGBT term? Please provide a citation or proof for that, otherwise it is not appropriate to include it for this category. What is the point here? --68.9.118.55 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, tomboy is not a LGBT-related idea, person, or thing, and to say so is boarderline offensive and unnecessary and a bastardization of the word and meaning. Whatever point is trying to be made is not needed in an encyclopediatic endevere. Thank you. --68.9.118.55 (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed a few of the see also as not being related to this term. How is giry girl related? That seems like a stretch. Effeminacy seems more related to men, but I guess it could somehow be related to boys as well and could be somehow related to femininity and masculinity among females as you pointed out above. As I first stated above, this entry seems like it had been bastardized abit and that was my concern. I also tried to tighten the lead some Thanks --68.9.118.55 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if LGBT template at the top of the page is for an article which members of the LGBT WikiProject feel is relevant enough to keep note of, that is fine by me and I apologize for removing it. --68.9.118.55 (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much the term is used in LGBT contexts, so I'll leave the decision about whether or not to add it back to people more familiar with that. The others are clearly relevant, though. "Butch and femme" refers specifically to gender expression in women, as this article does. Andromimetophilia is a rather narrow term, but it is part of the range about females who present themselves in a masculine way. Girly girl is related as the opposite - a girl who is highly feminine. Effeminacy is related as a different kind of opposite - males who behave in a manner expected of the other sex, just as tomboys behave in a manner expected of the other sex. I don't understand why you think it's "bastardizing" to include relevant wikilinks. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The ones I removed are LBGT related articles or themes or conditions if you will. As far as I can tell, tomboy never had any sexual or lesbian connection. I have looked at a number of other articles that have included tomboy in there see also sections that I find questionable but I have not removed them. Again what if any is the connection between tomboy and the LBGT community? I understand the "topic of femininity and masculinity among females" arugument you made at the start of this thread, but I still feel that there is some type of connection trying to be made between tomboy and lesbian issues that has not been properly sourced or proven or brought out that bastardizes the orginal context or meaning of tomboy into something else.--68.9.118.55 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This connection (or lack there of) was actually discussed above. Thanks, --68.9.118.55 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As I just stated above, there is a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism. However, the word Tomboy being a LGBT term? Not sure about that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide sources or articles that discuss this? I can't believe there isn't more out there. I will try to add more this week.Thanks --68.9.118.55 (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I added back stereotype and some material from the gender role article. What agenda are you saying is being pushed here? Please come out and just say it. Thank you. --68.9.118.55 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling it a stereotype pushes the agenda that we are saying it's wrong to call a girl who exhibits characteristics of the male gender role a tomboy, as though she may be something else. I mean, stereotype is not considered a pretty word, and sends the message that there is a good chance we are wrongly characterizing people. That's the problem here. The definition of tomboy is what it is, with no mention of it being a stereotype. I don't even see how it can truly be called a stereotype. It's simply the definition of a girl who exhibits behavior typical of what is considered male behavior. And where you changed the lead to state "often bearing a derogatory connotation or stereotype", just like the Nerd article, that's completely off. Many women, such as female celebrities, have no problem stating that they were tomboys when they were young girls. Some women, as adults, still state to being tomboys. Many people may have no problem stating that they were nerds either, but the word Nerd is actually the derogatory term out of these two. If the word Tomboy is derogatory, it's to far less people than the word Nerd is.

As for providing sources or articles that discuss the perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism, I will work on that. But, I mean, you've honestly never heard that? It's often mentioned in popular culture, for instance. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've brought sources that make it evident that there is a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism: This first one, for example. [3]

Recent short fiction, poetry, and imagery celebrating tomboys "who grew up to be lesbians" are compiled in Yamaguchi and Barber's Tomboys! Tales of Dyke Derring-do (1995). Acknowledging their own rambunctious girlhoods, the editors have assembled many perspectives on the relationship of a tomboy past to adult lesbian identity.

Throughout their history, tomboys have had to contend with the stigma of presumed lesbianism or the accusation of wanting to be male. Both assumptions were categorically refuted by twentieth-century psychology, which established the normalcy of the tomboy experience among girls of all identities. However, for many, the tomboy stage is the first manifestation of a gender-fluid life journey.

And then these sources: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]... And many more.

This article most definitely should have the LGBT tag. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that "tomboy" covers a range of behaviours that may or may not be related (e.g., wearing trousers, and having an interest in science), I think stereotype is accurate. I disagree that stereotype means it's wrong to use that word - on the contrary, it's saying it's perfectly correct to use that word for that stereotype. Stereotype says "a simplified and/or standardized conception or image with specific meaning, often held in common by one group of people about another group. A stereotype can be a conventional and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image, based on the assumption that there are attributes that members of the other group hold in common. Stereotypes may be positive or negative in tone." which I think works here. Not all people are wrongly characterised by a stereotype - but some may be. Also there is the point that what makes a tomboy has changed over time, which is presumably due to a change in people's perceptions, rather than a change in tomboys themselves.

I don't object to changing the lead, as it's simpler just to define the term directly, but I don't see why the category should be removed. Mdwh (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh course tomboy is a stereotype. Why is Flyer22 getting so upset? The material you included shows that there has been a negative conotation to the term. Why remove that part from the lead? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the sources included this "Once a derogatory slur, the tomboy designation has emerged as an icon of female non-conformance and resiliency." --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting "so upset". I simply do not see Tomboy as a stereotype. I see what Mdwh is saying, however. I wasn't saying that the word Stereotype means it's wrong to use that word all around, but that the word Stereotype is generally seen as a dirty word. Most times someone says the word "stereotype", people act as though "stereotypes" are something made up in fantasy land and aren't representative of real people. You always hear "don't stereotype people", for example. As for the lead, as I stated before, as well as Mdwh has stated, the lead should remain as is. I don't object to Tomboy being placed into the Stereotype category.

Also, 70.109.223.188, of course I know that "tomboy" was once considered a derogatory slur. And, of course, I checked my sources before listing them here. My point is that the word (tomboy) isn't considered a derogatory slur anymore. It's not anywhere close to such anymore. It isn't like the word sissy for boys. The word "tomboy" is stated in plenty of PG rated television shows and films, for instance, where the father calls his daughter a tomboy and it isn't seen as a bad thing. That certainly isn't the same for the word "sissy" in reference to boys or men. I'm going to change the part you edited out of my original edit to the Society section back. There is nothing wrong with mentioning that some tomboys "come out" as lesbians. In fact, there are some lesbians who believe that most tomboys are bound to be lesbians. As the Society section is now, with your "edit-out", it acts as though there is absolutely no correlation between tomboys and lesbians, something a lot of lesbians would argue. Thus I'm restoring that edit. Anyway, it seems that this topic is settled. Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Can sources be added for the first sentence under society? It seems that it could be tighten up. Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, unless the lesbians you mention above have done academic research ect, it really isn't relevant what they think or argue. There should reliable sources when making statements of fact.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a source for that sentence. The source (http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/tomboys,2.html) just comes after the first sentence. I don't even see why there needs to be a source for that. It's like stating that some firemen come out as gay. Not something that really needs to be sourced. And don't lecture me about reliable sources, as I am quite aware of such. Flyer22 (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I just presented some information from that source in the section above this section that I am going to include in this article. It tackles the fact that academic research has been done in which showcases that there is some correlation between tomboys and lesbianism...but also how being a tomboy is not a true indicator of lesbianism. Though I'm sure that people know that many heterosexual women were or are tomboys as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Flyer22, I don't think your example is a good one. Does the article Fireman mention that some of them come out as gay? I doubt it. I was just looking for a source for There is a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism. The more I read, the more I agree with it, but it is about providing sources. I don't mean to lecture and I don't think I am, just trying to improve this article.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I did provide a source (it states Throughout their history, tomboys have had to contend with the stigma of presumed lesbianism or the accusation of wanting to be male), and I feel that it is a good source. It also cites scholarly documents in which I'm sure can be easily found online. There are other sources above that I provided as well that state basically the same thing about the perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism.

And, LOL, no, I don't think that we would need to mention that some firemen come out as gay, since there is no perceived correlation between firemen and being gay, nor are there studies on that subject. If you want, which it seems that you do, I'll add more sources to sentence about there being a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying there are no gay fireman? Just kidding :), I know that isn't what you said. I need to run. Take care. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You take care as well. Talk with you later. Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Causes section

Why did you remove the Causes section, 70.109.223.188? Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It talks about what isn't. So what. What is trying to be said here? Can you post a rewrite here? Thanks --70.109.223.188 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a tackle. Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

While a better referenced section would be preferable, for the time being I've re-added the causes section. The main information in it has a source, so there's no reason to remove it entirely even if it needs a little cleanup and a little or a lot of expansion. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging Otenba into Tomboy article

I agree the Otenba article should be merged into this one. Leaving aside the issues of the tags it was given for cleanup and references, I'm really impatient (lol) to know how the Japanese conception of a tomboy contrasts with the POV represented by the existing article. The social implications...wow. This could be someone's ticket to a great PhD thesis.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge it! Magnetawan (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Otenba article has been deleted and so the discussion is moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge List of tomboys in fiction into this article

I think List of tomboys in fiction should be merged into this article. Magnetawan (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• No, thanks. The list has a focus upon fiction while this article does not. The list will grow to a large size, as there are numerous examples. This would be disproportionate in this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A merge is the best option in my opinion (second to deletion ;p), with the possibility of creating a category so individual articles can be grouped, and users can see all of those articles. A list in this case is not encyclopaedic in nature, and does not provide anything that a category would not. A list implies that we're working towards building an authoritative list, which we never can due to the subjective nature of identifying a character as being a tomboy. The only purpose I see in having a list is for illustrative purposes, which would best be served by a short list of tomboy characters in the article itself. -- Mark Chovain 00:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm against merging that list or any list into this article. All lists do is tempt unregistered users and even users familiar with Wikipedia but not familiar with all of its policies to add unsourced additions to these lists. Even if the additions are sourced, that's a continuation of additions. And with that being the case, lists are better left as individual articles, even a list as currently small as List of tomboys in fiction. There are plenty of well-sourced lists on Wikipedia that serve just fine separately of their parent articles...such as List of fictional anti-heroes and List of fictional supercouples, etc. I do not see why the same cannot go for this list. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW (previously posted on talk:list of tomboys)Personally, I'd put it (list of timboys) up for deletion. The number of tomboys (and does anyone know the equivalent word for a male who acts like a girl?) in fiction must run to the millions. The tomboy has been a standard character in fiction for a couple thousand years at least. Fifty years ago that paragon of maleness (Boy's Life) was rife with tomboys in its fiction and Men's Life always had exuberant women running around with machine guns and whips.71.197.83.129 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.83.129 (talk)

Yes, I would agree that this article should be deleted. The number of possible entries is in the thousands. A more appropriate treatment would be a section within Tomboy that dealt with the role of tomboys in popular culture and/or fiction. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The likely large number of notable entries is a reason to keep the list separate since such a large list would overwhelm the other article. This is the very ideas of lists - to present a large number of entries in a systematic way to assist the reader in navigating to related articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but the list only contains "common tomboys"(major secondary/main tomboy characters), not all. i think the list should be renamed into list of notable tomboys in fiction.anyway,where's the list of notable tomboys in fiction?i've been searched it but it's obiviously GONE.can you tell me why it's deleted?because the list is more complete than the list we know now.--Revim (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

N There seems to be no consensus for a merge. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Tomboys and their male peers

I think this article needs to explain a little more about the tomboys' role within their male and female peers. The tomboys I know fit very well with their male peers but are often criticized by other girls and some adults.

Personally, I find it hard to associate tomboys with lesbians. The main reason is that while most lesbians rather associate themselves with other lesbians, tomboys typically like men a lot and are constantly surrounded by them. Another difference is that tomboys are rarely radical in their look and they often keep some reminders of their femininity like long hair and sometimes makeup. I think many of them wear regular women’s clothes (My Boys) and most know how to wear them when they feel the occasion requires so. The celebrities (Pink, Avril Lavigne, Nelly Furtado, Ferguie) and pop cult characters depicted as tomboys (Donna from That 70’s Show, Joey from Dawson’s Creek, PJ from My Boys) are almost never perceived as lesbians. Therefore I actually challenge the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies tag, as this topic is only vaguely related.

Another interesting characteristic I think they often have is a leading role within their male peers. The way I see it, that’s because men often act in a relaxed way around them, taking them as “one of the guys”, but still remember the there are certain limits, like certain movies, games, language, places or topics they might or might not rather avoid. Because of these limits, when men want them to hang around, tomboys are often asked to make related decisions, getting a somewhat leading role.

I hope the above points help in any way to develop this article.--20-dude (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

While it's unfortunate there there isn't more scholarly research on this subject which can be referenced, personal observations and views nevertheless count as original research and, as such, do not belong in the article. I, for example, have met a number of lesbians and transmen who identified as tomboys in their youth, which would make it very relevant to the "L" and "T" in "LGBT studies". This disparity of personal observations between individuals is exactly why we can only use reliable sources and not personal observations and opinions in articles. The LGBT studies WikiProject template simply means that this article is of interest to editors involved in that project. As such, it is up to them to decide if they wish to consider this article part of the project, and not an endorsement as to how related or unrelated tomboys are to lesbians. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I didn't put my observations (which were explicitly personal) in the article, but rather here, where users that might agree (or disagree) and know the right sources, if judged convenient for the sake of knowledge (after all, I doubt tomboys would like to be automatically considered lesbians and vice versa), can translate them into real material. If you have trouble finding sources you can a) rely on popular culture sources (as long as they use the word "tomboy"), or b) go to google books, where they have a good deal of books where you can find keywords faster through search engines, or c) the internet where there are often verifiable sources you can use to justify any observation you add to the article.

Following your logic, I see that the template actually is ok. However, I suspect there might be other more related templates that should be placed as well (social behavior? psycholgy?)... But that's for the people with the right knowledge to decide (perhaps you?) and not for me.--20-dude (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Where you say, "tomboys typically like men a lot and are constantly surrounded by them," I'd say that I would not argue that most tomboys like men a lot and are often surrounded by them...but that does not equate to them necessarily being romantically/sexually attracted to men (and even if most are, we, of course, need valid sources stating that). And let's not forget that plenty of butch lesbians like men and are constantly surrounded by them as well.

Where you say, "Another difference is that tomboys are rarely radical in their look and they often keep some reminders of their femininity like long hair and sometimes makeup," I'd most definitely challenge that. A lot of tomboys, especially as children (I don't mean the teenage age), don't maintain that much femininity. And I point out that plenty of tomboy lesbians also keep some reminders of their femininity, like Ellen DeGeneres (who wears makeup and is even a Covergirl model). Flyer22 (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can the society section be better referenced or rewritten? I know there isn't alot if any of RS material related to this, so maybe shorten what is not referenced? This seems to have been covered before and I did edit here a few years back. Anyways, Tom (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There actually is a lot of valid sources related to how society views tomboys, which can be found on Google. It is just that people, including myself, have been lazy in regards to improving this article. I know that I said that I would expand/improve it before, but I actually will do that soon. I am not so sure about my doing significant expansion on this any time soon, but I will add better sources to it in a few or several days. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

tomboyishness as a disorder?

I heard that tomboyishness, like really hating the fact that they're girls and wanting to become males is rarely but in the more severe cases caused by some disorder, or something. it was like an imbalance of something or another. It's like a vegetarian(not trying to offend anyone, but it works) they want to change what they do because of some factor, IE not liking that cows are slaughtered, or how cruel and inhumane it is, or just being raised that way, and then not eating anything that came from any animal, or even preferring starvation than eating meat.

Sumarry of this crap: I think that some tomboys believe that is better to be a guy ( and i'm a guy and I know that being a guy isn't a gender, it's either a way of life or a disorder.) or that if they aren't acting like a male, then there is no point in life, and there is a disorder or a neurological messup that causes these belief

and now, the readers digest version: can some of the more extreme cases of tomboyishness be caused by a neurological something or other or an imbalance of hormones or whatever?

another worthless post by Hidnshadows!70.246.233.120 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC) EDIT NEVER MINDIt was called Gender Identity Disorder, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.233.120 (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a disorder. It's a normal passage through childhood for most young girls according to "A Three Generational Study of Tomboy Behavior" at the University of Wisconsin.Malke2010 19:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

tomboys in literature

I'm thinking of adding this as a section. If anyone has recommendations of books to include, either fiction or non-fiction, please add them here. Thanks. Malke2010 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Image removed

I have removed the image from this article. The children in the image are young enough that they could easily have been dressed by their parents and, more particularly, there's no evidence that the child referred to as a tomboy is actually female. The original flickr picture doesn't state that. Risker (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The image removed was File:Two girls sitting on a sidewalk - 20090915.jpg. -- ToE 06:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity

I find it disturbing that this article kicks around the term "tomboy" is if it was a scientific category without ever defining that category --109.56.205.67 (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, IP. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Feminine vs unfeminine tomboys

Is it true that while some tomboys are completely like "one of the boys," others still retain a sense of femininity? I mean, they can all be "rough-and-tumble" like the boys, but are there also "effeminate" tomboys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.6.121 (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes: Tomboy: Origin, Organization, Visualization

This week I took a deeper dive into the tomboy article and fixed a lot of existing issues. First of all, the article was disorganized and difficult to navigate. It only had three sections, “Etymology”, “Society and Culture”, and “Studies”, which were not enough to clearly navigate the reader. Therefore, I divided the sections into:

“Etymology of Tomboy”

“History of Tomboy”

“Tomboy, Gender Roles, and Gender Reformation”

“Tomboy and Sexual Orientation”

“Tomboy across Culture” (will soon to be drafted)

“Tomboy representation in Media”

“Tomboy: Criticism and Appraisal”

Another major change that I’ve done this week was to improve the etymology section. I did research on the history of etymology of “tomboy” and went back to ancient plays written in the 16th century to find out what “tomboy” meant back in the days and how it changed throughout history. Not only did I realize that the term “tomboy” was originally used to refer to boisterous boys and not what is commonly accepted as “boyish girl,” I also found out some hypothesis about why exactly the boy name “Tom” was chosen to join with “boy” to create the hybrid word “tomboy”. I also did a close reading on the comedy “Ralph Roister Doister” by Nicholas Udall which the term“tomboy” was ever used on woman in literature. I learned that in the play the wealthy widow Dame Christian Custance criticizes her young female maid Tibet Talkapace, "Is all your delight and joy in whisking and ramping abroad like a tom-boy?" (Act II, Scene IV). Since the play was believed to be the first play written in English which soon gained popularity in England, this shed light on why the meaning of tomboy shifted from boisterous boys into bold, immodest, and vigor woman.

Furthermore, I tailored the image so that it fits more with the modern definition of tomboy. Originally, the landing image of the article was an oiling painting of a 7-10 years old girl wearing a dress, a cowboy hat, and pair of leather boots, carelessly leaning on a farm railing. Although this oiling painting could be an adequate representation of the term back in the 1800s (girls with a naughty, active nature), it wasn’t the most precise visualization of a modern tomboy. Therefore, I replaced the image with a more typical tomboy with androgynous and sporty dressing. Another bizarre choice of image in the original article was the inclusion of an image of a granite statue of a female Pharaoh, with the caption arguing that such was a behavior of ancient tomboyism. Since the term “tomboy” was first documented in the 16th century, I believe using an image from ancient Egypt civilization was not only inappropriate but also mistaken, because the definition of a tomboy is not about woman with power but rather with a boisterous, reckless, and active nature. Thus, I removed the image. Greenoyster333 (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)