Talk:Woman/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Proposed edits to lede

User:Maria Tomoșoiu edited the lede to remove the following sentence:

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

After that edit was made, the lede read as follows:

A woman is a female human being. The word woman is usually reserved for an adult, with girl being the usual term for a female child or adolescent. The plural women is also sometimes used for female humans, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "women's rights". Women with typical genetic development are usually capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause.

User:Maria Tomoșoiu provided an edit summary that reads as follows: "As the inclusion of the term 'trans woman' within the definition of the word 'woman' renders said definition circular therefore invalid, I have removed it."

User:Newimpartial reverted the edit made by User:Maria Tomoșoiu, stating: "Reverted per BRD. Please discuss."

The reasoning set forth by User:Maria Tomoșoiu is correct. If the term "woman" includes trans women, the definition of "woman" in the article ("a female human being") is inaccurate, or at least incomplete. Thus, the current version of the lede is self-contradictory. I proposed that the edit made by User:Maria Tomoșoiu be reinstated. SunCrow (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding links to previous discussions somewhat related: Dec 2018 and most of the threads on this Feb 2017-Oct 2018 archive page. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The reasoning provided by Maria (an editor with all of one other edit to mainspace—SPA?) is incorrect; in what way does it make the definition "circular"? The argument that covering multiple parts of a definition makes it "incorrect" also appears to lack a basis in logic or RS, one of which the body of the article cites for its (stubby, eminently expandable) discussion of trans women and of intersex women, which needs to be summarized in the lead in some way since per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to set out the scope of the topic and summarize the body of text about it. The body needs expansion (perhaps especially about intersex women, since for trans women it can just point a link towards that other article for more content), and the lead-text might benefit from some modification, but not total removal. (I don't even see the issue with "female", since the word is polysemous and trans women are often referred to as females, feminine, etc, even if also referred to as male-assigned. Even the article we link the word to says females only usually have two X chromosomes, and it should possibly acknowledge somewhere that even production of ova is only usual/typical of the category but not inherent in all individuals, as e.g. infertile females are well-documented in RS. That, however, is straying off the topic at hand.) -sche (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We worked this out before; see Talk:Woman/Archive 10#Wording. A lead sentence containing one definition or concept does not mean that another definition or concept for the topic is contradictory. Not automatically anyway. Many terms and topics have more than one definition. Per WP:Due weight, Wikipedia usually gives significantly more weight to the most common definition or concept. It is typical to see a Wikipedia article begin with the most common definition or concept and then go into one or more less common definitions or concepts. So that is why the lead of the Woman article begins with the definition it begins with, but later talks about trans women. The article also addresses trans women lower in the article. Intersex women as well. Are you saying the article shouldn't mention trans women at all? If you are saying we shouldn't mention them in the lead, that is contrary to what WP:Lead states. Those who reply to me on this, don't ping me; this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A note that information about transgender and intersex boys was also removed from the lead of Boy, with similar reasoning given. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Trans/intersex men were also removed from the lead of Man, though that change was reverted. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

-sche, in answer to your question: The current lede is self-contradictory because it says that a woman is a female human, but then goes on to describe "trans women" as women. "Trans women", by definition, are not female. If a "trans woman" is a woman, than the definition of "woman" as a female human being is necessarily either incorrect or incomplete. SunCrow (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, thank you for providing a link to the prior discussion. And yes, multiple definitions of a term are not necessarily contradictory--but they are in this instance. To put it simply: If "trans women" are women, then it is inaccurate to define "woman" as a "female human being." To put it another way, if being a woman requires one to be female, "trans women" are not women. When a lede includes multiple definitions of a term that contradict each other, it should say so and explain the differences between those definitions. It should not simply lay out contradictory information the way this lede currently does. SunCrow (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The underlying assumption here is that the word "female" can only refer to people with certain physiological reproductive features. I'm not sure things are actually that clear cut: the Merriam-Webster definition of "gender identity", for example, talks about "male" and "female" identity, not "man" and "woman" identity. In any case, if the word "female" poses problems, a simple solution would be to remove it: A woman is a type of human being. The word woman is usually..., etc. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow, I don't agree with your contradiction assessment. This is because of the standard definition/conception of "woman." That is all the lead sentence is doing, and it's what it should do -- present the standard definition/conception of "woman." A trans woman is not a typical woman and many (like you) argue that they are not female. The sex and gender distinction does exist, and some trans women also say that they are not female in the strict sense. But that lead sentence obviously is not about trans women. That is why we note that there are also trans women. As seen with this revert by Mathglot, the lead used to state, "With regard to gender, a woman may also be a person whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity." As that revert shows, an editor proposed that the lead be changed to the following: "With regard to gender, woman may also refer to gender identity rather than sex assignment." Either version was to explain that a person may be a woman beyond biology (anatomical sex). After that, the discussion I pointed you to ensued. We could go back to an emphasis on gender identity, but the wording would need to be good. And we also need to keep intersex women in mind. I was clear in that aforementioned discussion that "my edit removed 'with regard to gender' [...] specifically with intersex people in mind."

I don't agree with removing "female" and leaving in the vague "is a type of human being." "Female" is a significant aspect of the topic. We are not going to remove "female" just because trans women exist. It would be undue weight to remove "female" to appease sentiments regarding trans women, who are the significant minority. And I'd rather not have the lead focus on the word as though this article is about the word. Yes, going by WanderingWanda's proposal, the word aspect wouldn't be in the first sentence, which is what WP:ISAWORDFOR, MOS:LEADSENTENCE and WP:Refers focus on, but it's still best to not focus on the word.

Betty Logan has been embroiled in the trans woman disputes regarding the definition at the Trans woman article, but I find her to usually have good ideas when it comes to wording. And knowing how passionate she is about this topic, she might want to weigh in as well. So I'm pinging her. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, although I stated that "we could go back to an emphasis on gender identity," the current wording does focus on gender identity with regard to trans women. It's not like the lead is explicitly calling trans women female. It specifically says "a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity." To repeat, that first sentence is not about trans women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be undue weight to remove "female" to appease sentiments regarding trans women, who are the significant minority. This isn't a question of appeasement but of accuracy. The lead sentence should not be constructed in such a way that it excludes trans women, for the same reason that, say, the lead sentence of Americans should not exclude Muslims. Muslims may be a minority in America, but it would still be incorrect to, say, define Americans as being "Judeo-Christian". The question, then, is whether the word "female" necessarily excludes trans women. I'm not sure it does, but if it does, it should be removed. Pinging Wikiproject Women, WikiProject LGBT, Talk:Transgender. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Your argument that "the lead sentence should not be constructed in such a way that it excludes trans women" disregards WP:Due. For the lead sentence, we do indeed include/restrict the lead sentence to the most common definition/concept of a term or topic for countless Wikipedia articles. We don't try to put every definition in the lead sentence, as is clear by how the lead of the Atheism article is formatted. And we don't give the undue aspect the same weight as the most common aspect. "Accuracy" with regard to the transgender aspect is disputed, and you know it. If it weren't, SunCrow wouldn't have an issue with calling trans women female. I'll alert WP:WikiProject Anthropology, WP:WikiProject Sociology, WP:WikiProject Gender Studies and WP:WikiProject Feminism, WP:WikiProject Women's History, WP:WikiProject Anatomy, WP:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view to this discussion. I might even ping all of the editors involved in the debates regarding the lead sentence of the Trans woman article. Should be fun. I very much doubt that an RfC will see consensus agreeing to remove "female." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

And to speak more on the due weight matter, we know that many or most trans women have a penis and that some trans women do not view their penis as a male sex organ. Some of them refer to their penis as "a girl penis" or "female." But we are not going to have the lead of the Human penis exclude the "male" description. We are not going to reword most of the Human penis article so that "males" and "men" are not mentioned. This would be engaging in undue weight to appease sentiments regarding trans women. As seen at Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth", a discussion I pointed to times before, I and others did consider not beginning the Human penis article with the statement that it's something that male humans have. The article now simply begins by describing the organ as male, and this is because the literature does. We can't state that it's simply something that some people have and not specify it as a male reproductive system organ. In the case of women, biology is a big deal, as is clear by the article. Sex-related illnesses, for example, do exist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no simple definition of "woman" that isn't circular, is unambiguous and has any common sense validity to it. Before we could even start looking at whether gender is performative, biological or psychological, we would have to question whether a definition should be descriptive or prescriptive. Whether trans women are women but not female or vice versa or something else is a rabbit hole with no answer that we shouldn't go down. Instead the point of the lead should be to impress upon the reader significants aspects which are relevant to the category of womanhood. The current version of the lead, which includes mention of trans women and intersex women, looks like a pretty good first paragraph to me. My only suggestion would be to change "There are also trans women (...), and intersex women (...)" to "Some women are trans (...) or intersex (...)" to prevent the potential implication that these groups are not women, or to imply (based on the connection with the previous sentence) that all intersex women are incapable of giving birth. And then I'd suggest that we expand the lead. I'd say a paragraph on typical biology and anatomy, a paragraph on gender roles and social behaviour and patriarchy, and a paragraph on women's history would be ideal. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll alert WP:WikiProject Anthropology, WP:WikiProject Sociology, WP:WikiProject Gender Studies and WP:WikiProject Feminism, WP:WikiProject Women's History, WP:WikiProject Anatomy, WP:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view to this discussion. I appreciate it. More perspectives are welcome. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The definition in the lead needs to be fully sourced and should fully reflect those sources. Maria Tomoșoiu is correct in that the lead is now setting up a circular definition. Since "trans" is a modifier of the word being defined then obviously you cannot use it to define the topic. If mainstream definitions of womanhood extend beyond the female sex and also include males and intersex then obviously they should be included with the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Trans isn't a Grammatical modifier. It's an open Compound noun (and a closed compound noun when it's spelled as transwoman). It does not mean "a woman who is trans" any more than peanut butter means butter that is a peanut or a living room is a room that is alive. It means "trans woman", a complete concept that does not depend upon modifying any other concept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

    The definition of a "trans woman" draws its meaning from that of a woman i.e. what you have is an circular definition. So no, it's not a complete and independent concept. If the concept of a "woman" did not exist then the definition of a "trans woman" would not make any sense. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

    The current lead doesn't define "woman" using "trans woman"; it mentions it in the lead, after saying "A woman is a female human being." This is just as valid as saying "An apple is a sweet, edible fruit produced by a Malus domestica. Apples may be red or green." — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 14:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Brought from WT:ANTHRO I generally agree with Bilorv, but still think the first sentence is somewhat misleading. It defines "woman" as identical to sex characteristics, but then goes on to contradict that. I looked at how some of the other Wikipedias handle this and I actually like how the German Wikipedia handles this at de:Frau: "The terms [Frau and Femina] refer to the biological sex, the social role, or both. [Die Bezeichnungen unterscheiden das biologische Geschlecht, die soziale Rolle oder beides.])" In that spirit, maybe we could phrase the first line as something like A woman is a feminine human with a particular biological sex or social role. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• A couple of comments: 1. I'm not strongly advocating for the removal of the word "female". It was just an idea I thought was worthy of some consideration. 2. This Slate article about the dictionary definition of woman may be of interest. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I pointed to that article before. As you likely know, this is seen at Talk:Woman/Archive 10#Gender identity. Like that Slate article notes, the literature is not yet there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If editors agree to it, we could try the "especially" route that Merriam-Webster is mentioned as taking with "man" in that source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I was confused why the wording between Webster's "man" and "woman" entries were so different, until I remembered that "man" is traditionally used in a supposedly gender neutral way.

Anyway, here's another stab at rewording the lead:

A woman is an adult human being, typically one with female sex characteristics. Commonly, women can give birth from puberty until menopause. Some women are transgender and have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity. Some women are intersex and are born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female. The plural women is sometimes used to refer simultaneously to both girls and adult women, as in phrases such as women's rights. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That might work. I don't think it should be added without more opinions on it, though. And, yes, we'll likely need an RfC on it. But before heading the RfC route, you could simply propose that wording in a subsection of this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think Wanda's proposed wording strikes a nice balance. Acknowledges the common usage up front without contradicting further clarification later on in the paragraph. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a note: Someone might argue that trans women can attain some female sex characteristics with sex reassignment therapy and that sex reassignment surgery exists if a trans woman decides to go the surgery route, but that a woman is usually understood to have more than just some or certain female sex characteristics (such as breasts but no vagina). A woman is usually understood to be female in the sense addressed by the Female article. Still, WanderingWanda's wording might be enough of a compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think some of what I've proposed above requires additional consideration, but I'm going to go ahead and implement the change that Bilorv suggested, as it does not seem to be controversial. ("Some women are..." instead of "There are also...") If there are objections feel free to revert. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The more I look at sources defining "woman" and this article, which necessarily covers a lot of biological and health material that is sex-specific, the more I think we should retain "A woman is a female human being." I'm just not seeing sources defining "woman" in some other way, including in the way you proposed. And I've looked at encyclopedias and academic books for how they may define "woman."

Betty Logan has a point that we should be sticking to what sources state rather than coming up with our own definitions. And I don't think it's appropriate to use an LGBT source or specifically a transgender source for the lead sentence in order to broaden what "woman" covers; that would be undue weight. Same goes for using some opinion piece or other media piece on the dispute regarding defining trans women as women. With regard to the biology material the article includes, I state that it necessarily includes it because it's all important. The article is not full of biological and health stuff without valid reason. It's not like it needs to be trimmed to make way for more society and culture stuff. The "Biology and sex" section is important from an anatomical perspective. The "Health" section is important because of the sex-based stuff it covers. Reproductive rights and freedom are obviously important. Violence against women is obviously important and includes matters such as female genital mutilation (again sex-based). Fertility is obviously important. So the literature on "woman" is overwhelmingly about cisgender women. But as others have made clear below, "female" can also be interpreted as applying to trans women. I know and have talked to trans women who do not consider themselves female; some are clear that, for example, irrespective of gender identity (whether the person is a trans woman or trans man), gynaecology concerns the female reproductive system and women's health and that they, as trans women, don't think they will ever need to go to a gynaecologist; health-wise, all they know is andrology. But WhatamIdoing is obviously correct that some trans women see themselves as female. And if we use wording like "A woman is typically a female human being.," it's awkward and can be confusing because readers might wonder why "typically" is there even with the mention of trans women later on in the lead. If we say "A woman is an adult human being, typically a female person.", some might go with that, but it'll no doubt offend others...both cisgender women and trans women. Not that we should generally edit based on what readers will find offensive. On a side note: We should probably add "adult" to that first sentence (and for the Man article) as well, like sources consistently do. Yes, "adult" is mentioned in the second sentence, but it doesn't mean that it's redundant to have "adult" in the first sentence. The second sentence is focused on specifying that woman is usually reserved for an adult. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Both Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries define a woman as an "adult female /human/person" so being an adult is intrinsically part of the definition. The first sentence should follow suit IMO and could be sourced to the two dictionary definitions. Betty Logan (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting and considering that the phrase "adult human female" has become a transphobe meme: Woman billboard removed after transphobia row. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that the one incident, which others might not call a meme, should have any bearing on this matter. And it's nothing new that people question if trans women are women by bringing up the female aspect; we see that this is how this talk page discussion started. We see it at the Trans woman talk page, and I'm sure that most of the people debating the matter there questioning how the lead presents what a trans woman is there are not feminists/are not the acronym you initially used...except for when using it broadly to include non-feminists/non radical feminists. The difference between the one incident you linked to and how this discussion started is that SunCrow didn't start this discussion to disparage anyone. I don't see that because there are people who say "trans women are not women because they aren't female," we should avoid including the very due usage of "adult" and "female" -- which are key aspects of the definition/concept of "woman." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, it makes no sense to have this article exclude "female" from its lead sentence while the Man article continues to get to use "male" in its lead sentence and when many people also say that "trans men are not men because they are not male." And then there are the Boy and Girl articles that also use "male" and "female," respectively, in their lead sentences. I know that trans women get more attention than trans men, in part because there are more trans women than trans men, but if we are going to remove a sex category from the lead sentence of one of these articles, we should be consistent across the board. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that the one incident, which others might not call a meme, should have any bearing on this matter. I linked the incident to illustrate a trend. If you search social media for the phrase "adult human female" you will see lots of transphobia pop up. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

What I stated with my "12:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)" and "12:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)" posts still applies, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the sentence is 100% appropriate: with it, it keeps the lede focused on what the generally accepted term of "woman" is but does not dismiss that there are trans/intersex women as well, who are also going to be discusses on this page. The world is still not at a reasonable state that we can use the more progressive consideration that broadly includes trans and intersex women under "women" (its getting there, but it really is not there yet), but we certainly can saying those classes are fully connected to talking about the non biological aspects of womanhood throughout the rest of the article. The only additional change I would suggest is a subheading under "Biology and sex" to explain trans and intersex more (though clearly with more info at the linked pages). --Masem (t) 22:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

And just reading a few of the above, as its impossible to draw an encyclopedic line between the biological aspects and the social aspects of woman (that is, having separate articles on these), maybe the lead sentence starts "In biology, a woman..." and then later in the lede "Woman can also be defined from a social concept, as ...". Then this fully makes sense to bring in trans/intersex women as soon as possible since they will fit more into the society-based concept --Masem (t) 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You have forgotten the POV in which some trans women believe that they are biologically female, albeit not in the ways that happen to be used for determining intersex status.

This whole thing begins with an assumption that the reader's frame of reference is the sex-gender distinction. Not all of our readers will think that there's any difference between woman and female, but I sincerely doubt that anyone who can read English actually needs a dictionary definition. IMO the goal should be to Wikipedia:Build the web to closely related concepts, and then summarize the body of the article. The body, of course, should include all the concepts definitions impartially: woman as a person with certain biological features, woman as a person with a certain gender role, woman as a person with a certain gender presentation, woman as a person with a certain internal identity, woman as status imposed by others, etc. It should not matter whether your idea is "I'm a woman because I can have babies" or "I'm a woman because I do women's work" or whatever; you should find all those ideas mentioned in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that you have plenty of room to expand the lede to give space to explain the complexity of this article - multiple ways that "woman" can be looked or how some will define themselves by it. Lay out the groundwork that the article here starts with the biologically, and then moves more into societal. Make sure trans and intersex women are both described in the lede (eg keep that sentence). You can cover that some trans classify themselves as women in the lede too. Basically, you could have up to 3-4 paragraphs of lede given the size of this article, and you should use that to prepare the reader for a not-quite-straightforward article. --Masem (t) 00:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Masem, as you know, intersex is also a biological matter. Seen at Talk:Woman/Archive 10#Wording, I relayed, "My edit removed 'with regard to gender,' and I mainly did that specifically with intersex people in mind. [...] so many intersex people do not know they are intersex and are usually considered male or female even if their chromosomes are not typical." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the content that was removed should be restored, but maybe some further clarification on the Sex and gender distinction are needed. Women as defined by gender =/= women as defined by sex. Perhaps simply linking to the Sex and gender distinction article in the lead around the disputed sentence would be sufficient to address any problems? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus (Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus), regarding removed content, this is the revert in question. Some content was removed, and another editor restored it. So it seems you mean that you think that the transgender and intersex content should be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, with qualifications/explanations that such concepts are relatively novel and should be understood in the dimension I linked to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Remove trans- and intersex mentions from lede - Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, the content in the lede should reflect predominance of usage in reliable sources. I think that standard makes it clear that an exhaustive description of trans or intersex women in the lede is UNDUE. In fact, no mention of these classes should at all be in the lede of this article because I think its clear that sources on the broad topic of woman, overall, only extremely rarely mention them. -- Netoholic @ 13:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Two quick points to make: firstly, we're talking about a definition of women, which shouldn't depend on all sources about women, but rather sources about what it means to be a woman. Secondly, we should be weighting contemporary sources more highly than older ones, because language changes and so can understanding of facts (e.g. most sources say "Fermat's Last Theorem is unproven" because it was unproven for 357 years and has been proved for 25; yet obviously Wikipedia should say "Fermat's Last Theorem has been proved"). And to combine these points: a significant number of contemporary sources discussing what it means to be a woman, such as in the academic fields of gender studies and philosophy of gender, discuss womanhood as a combination of biological, social and psychological roles, and in any explanation of what these things are, it would be a significant omission to exclude that some women are trans or intersex. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 13:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • "rather sources about what it means to be a woman" - nope. Feel free to create Woman (social construct), but the primary meaning of the term woman as supported by the vast coverage in reliable sources (both past and present) is "female human" - referring to the realities which differentiate that biological sex from the male counterpart man. I am not saying that the very modern "gender studies" interpretation has no place in the article, just that it is vastly UNDUE for the lede where space is more limited and the main scope of the article is presented. The focus on this article, though, needs to be about biological realities of the typical class of female humans. -- Netoholic @ 16:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
      • The vast majority of sources use (in their adjective forms) "woman" and "female" interchangeably, so it's preposterous to say "define a woman as a female human and leave it there". You've presented no reasoning for this article to deal with biology alone—this isn't Woman (human biology). — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Don't try to re-frame what I said. Clearly trans and intersex can be covered briefly in the article, but not everything covered in the article is significant enough to warrant mention in the lede summarization. That's the case here. The vast majority of this article should be devoted to "female human". I haven't seen a survey which estimates the trans population to be anything more than about 0.1–0.5% in the U.S. - and since transgenderism is far less common in most of the rest of the world, that number is far lower across humanity as whole. Coverage in reliable sources would likewise reflect this, and per WP:UNDUE, that is far too small a sample to give any consideration in the lede. -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
          • @Netoholic: "transgenderism" is invariably used to insult trans people. Per GLAAD guidelines This is a term used by anti-transgender activists to dehumanize transgender people and reduce who they are to "a condition." [1] Please make a point of avoiding this word. Thanks. --Fæ (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep term 'female', watch carefully for undue weight - I strongly disagree with any proposal to remove the word "female" as part of the lead sentence in favor of 'feminine' or any other such substitutes. Dictionaries all define women as female. 'Female', an adjective, does not necessarily exclude intersex and trans women. It can refer to female traits, not just to having two X chromosomes or producing ova.

However, I too have WP:UNDUE-related concerns. The current lede spends about 35% of its length on a tiny proportion of the population. The matter of trans women is a political minefield right now; being NPOV will be extremely difficult. I think the lede of our article man handles it well and should be imitated here. One brief sentence on trans and intersex women as exceptions is appropriate, as that article does. There could easily be a little expansion of the lede also, again like the man article.

Regarding not only the lede but the article as a whole: Because the topic is so controversial, great care is needed. Even in academia, there is significant debate on these matters. It is essential to be careful to avoid cherry picking and to accurately represent what a wide variety of RS say. In particular, gender studies often has a strong activist bent and assumes social constructionism, and is not the only field that considers matters related to womanhood. Sociology, psychology, medicine, and yes, biology, doubtless among others, all have things to say on womanhood, and there are diverse schools of thought within these fields. Crossroads1 (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Oy vey. If I had known how complex and lengthy this discussion would get, I wouldn't have asked the question. SunCrow (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow, lulz, you expected the discussion about whether trans women are women to be simple and short? :-) – Levivich 20:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment (per notification at WT:ANATOMY).
  1. 2 of 5 lines currently refer to intersex and transgender, which is quite a large proportion of the lead compared with such a massive topic. Per WP:LEAD: As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. I don't think 40% of the topic relates to these concepts or assignations.
  2. I feel the lead could be expanded to do a better job of summarising the topic and this may help obviate the above concern. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep "female" as well as "woman" in the lede, because both terms are used by RS to refer to both sex and gender concepts. See, from many recent reliable sources, the official definitions used for Canadian demographic statistics. Gender identity and gender expression are the defining characteristics of gender in Canada, whereas sex is assigned at birth-the same terminology used in other recent, reliable sources. Woman is used as an equivalent to female in terms of both sex and gender, and the WP article should continue to reflect this. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The source you linked to states, "Sex and gender refer to two different concepts. Caution should be exercised when comparing counts for sex with those for gender. For example, female sex is not the same as female gender. The variable 'Gender of person' and the 'Classification of gender' are expected to be used by most social statistics programs. The variable 'Sex of person' and the 'Classification of sex' are to be used where information on sex at birth is needed, for example for some demographic and health indicators." This discussion partly concerns that, with editors mentioning the sex and gender distinction, and with me mentioning what I did in my "21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)" and "11:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)" posts. I, for example, pointed to sex-related illnesses. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course the distinction between sex and gender is important, just as the different senses of "gender" are also important (and I have made both of those points on this page before).

The point of my citation this time is that they terms male and female are both (per Statistics Canada) used for sex as well as for gender, as is (more obviously) true of the term "woman". So the argument that "female" should be used only for "sex", or that trans women are not "female", are simply unsupportable arguments in terms of recent RS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. In the case of distinguishing sex and gender, however, trans women may not be considered with regard to a number of sex aspects; that was my point in quoting a part of the source you cited. That the sex and gender distinction exists obviously doesn't mean that trans women are never referred to as female. Others above have noted that it's certainly not unheard of for trans women to be referred to as, or considered, female. On a side note: Why did you state "Keep [...] 'woman' in the lede"? There was no suggestion that "woman" be removed; the title of the article is, well, "Woman." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

My point was to keep "female" as well as woman, rather than rewriting to avoid "female". My reasoning here is that it is unwise, as well as misleading, to restrict the term "female" as if it were only an appropriate label for sex assignment, when it is an equally relevant term for gender including for gender identity.

And I am not pretending to have brought anything entirely novel to this discussion, except a new source. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I decided to spend a few minutes digging around for definitions, because a dictionary seems like a weak source, compared to what we could be using. First, and perhaps most interestingly, Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911) simply skips the definition altogether (read it at Wikisource) and plunges straight into historical subjugation and the suffragettes.

But if you are not inspired by the idea of skipping the definition altogether, then we should move on to better sources.

• First up is doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892631.001.0001, which is a gold-plated academic source. In this model, a woman is a person who is discriminated against by other people due to their belief that she's in the child-bearing half of the species. This includes, e.g., intersex and trans and non-binary people who appear female, but it has been criticized for not necessarily including Queen Elizabeth, who might not exactly be discriminated against, at least in the usual ways (although one might wonder whether the pressure to produce an heir for the kingdom is its own special form of "systematic subordination", to use the author's phrase, and the old laws saying that she could only be the monarch if there were no men around probably does make her qualify). What's striking about it compared to the dictionary definitions quoted above is that you are a woman if and because other people think you are, and your own feelings on the matter don't really enter into the question at all (except to the extent that your own feelings might affect your actions, which in turn might affect other people's view of whether you're a woman).
• Simone de Beauvoir's position, which should at least be acknowledged in the article, was that a woman is a person trained by society to fill that gender role, and that as a matter of practicalities, these people were selected for this training on the grounds that they were born with anatomical evidence of being biologically female. To oversimplify, this is a Womyn-born womyn view: if you weren't raised as a girl, then you probably aren't a woman.
• Gender Trouble (ISBN 9780203902752) represents the view of third-wave feminism and Continental philosophy. In this, "woman" is not the most important category, "biological sex" is a social construct (just like gender), gender identity doesn't technically exist (but gender expression does, and it's how you show whether you're going along with the power structures), and the whole thing is about power. Women, in short, are the people who don't have a fair share of power overall, and you can identify them by the way they behave. In this category, all transwomen are included (but I suppose that poor Queen Elizabeth might be excluded again). Framing it all in terms of power has been criticized for (I oversimplify again) denying free will.

The other thing that struck me while looking around is that relatively little is made of "adult" specifier that the dictionary includes.

All of these definitions should be represented in the article. We might need a significant section on definitions. Perhaps the ==Etymology== section could be re-worked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly? Sure. Cherry-picked? Absolutely. These views do not represent the mainstream. This article is and should be focused on female humans (the WP:COMMONNAME for which is "woman") - NOT a broad article about all things called "woman". This article should draw upon sources which a female human is - with primacy given to what they say about biology. -- Netoholic @ 11:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see you abandoning any pretense to DUE and BALANCE, Netolic, and picking FRINGE POV for primacy over national statistical organizations. At least your motives are transparent. Newimpartial (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, I don't think that this article is about "biological female humans". If it were, then we would have named it that. Also, if the subject were the intersection of humans as a species and female as a sex, there wouldn't be whole sections that are irrelevant to biology. All those sections about ==Culture and gender roles==, ==Clothing, fashion and dress codes==, ==Religion==, and ==Education== (to name only a few) convince me that the subject of this article is not an animal of a particular species and sex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

All of those topics relate to sex/are relevant to biology. Gender roles? Like the Gender role article makes clear, those roles are based around the sex of a person. The "Culture and gender roles" section in the Woman article has a "Violence against women" section. As is clear by the Violence against women article, that violence is because of the woman's sex. Female genital mutilation, which is in the "Violence against women" section, is about the woman's sex. How women are supposed dress or behave? It's about their sex. The education that many of them are denied? It's about their sex. Single-sex education? It's about dividing the sexes. Even the Religion section speaks of what is expected of women because of their sex. Discrimination and violence against women are significantly based more on their sex than on their gender identity. People are assigned a sex based on their genitals, not on what gender identity they may identify with later in life. When violence against trans women happens, it is also about their sex, but in a different way (unless the trans woman passes and is not known as transgender); it's usually due to a combination of homophobia and transphobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I am not sure that you fully processed the Statistics Canada link I provided earlier. At least one RS - namely a major national statistical agency with decades of experience analyzing such topics as Violence against Women - is arguing that gender identity is the preferred variable for the majority of social phenomena (with the notes exception of certain health indicators). Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I read that Statistics Canada link, and also, as you know, quoted it back to you. Firstly, it applies to Canada, not to the world at large. Second, it does not discount what I stated in my "21:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)" post. It's a fact that discrimination and violence against women are significantly based more on their sex than on their gender identity. When people are assigned girls, is society doing all of the gendered and/or unequal things it does to them because of their gender identity? No. It's because of their sex. When they are older, there will be some gender identity discrimination, where they are discriminated against solely because of the "female" identity they used on a form or similar, but women are mainly discriminated against because of their sex. They mainly face violence because of their sex. Do you think that most violence against women is because the women identify as women? So all they'd need to do is just identify as non-binary and they wouldn't face the disproportionate levels of discrimination and violence they face? I can list various reliable scholarly sources that make it clear that the main reason women are discriminated against and face violence is due to their sex. Third, I don't think you are interpreting that source appropriately. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, you are asserting without evidence that violence against women is based more on sex assignment than in gender identity. Do you have any recent, reliable sources for that claim? And your statement about "choosing to be non-binary" is absurd, since I assume you know that additional forms of violence are deployed against non-cis compared to cis people. To move beyond Statistics Canada for a second this is the fact sheet from the Canadian federal department mandated to deal with "Women's issues", articulating gender (rather than sex assignment) as the most relevant frame for understanding violence against women. Newimpartial (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You really want me to list sources that make it clear that the main reason women are discriminated against and face violence is due to their sex? The sources in the article and all over Wikipedia in articles like Violence against women are not enough for you? Very well then. In the meantime, you should look to gather sources that state that the main reason women are discriminated against is because of their gender identity or that they are equally discriminated against because of their gender identity. The Canadian material you keep citing and interpreting doesn't cut it. Your suggestion that this is the case is what is absurd to me. This is why I mentioned "choosing to be non-binary," since the "women are mainly or equally discriminated against because of their gender identity" view takes the stance that if these female-bodied people did not identify as women, they would not face the disproportionate levels of discrimination and violence they face. That is nonsense, for the reasons I already addressed. Women being scared to go jogging at night is not because of their gender identity. It's because of their sex. Men have been interviewed about the "jogging at night" matter and are usually clear that they are not afraid to go jogging at night by their lonesome because they are male; in other words, they convey that they have an advantage because of their anatomy. It is not about their gender identity. The main reason women are disproportionately affected by -- are targets of intimate partner violence -- is because of their sex. If sex wasn't such a big issue in the case of intimate partner violence, so many more women than men wouldn't be severely injured or die. And, for the record, many non-binary people are clear that they chose their gender identity; many are very clear about genderfucking. I didn't at all state "choosing to be non-binary" to be offensive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

My point about "choosing to be nonbinary" and violence is that it would be absurd to choose a gender identity, to avoid violence, that is subject to additional forms of violence.

And as far as sex assignment is concerned, violent predators never have the ability to detect chromosomes and seldom even have particularly accurate ways to discern anatomy. So in your jogging scenario, sex assignment would be well below gender expression in a rational assessment of risk, except for the matter of height and musculature (and the latter is often affected by transition hormones and gender identity itself). "Passing" trans folks illustrate this nicely: passing trans men will no longer be subject to gendered jogging violence (for as long as they pass), while passing trans women can (and do) become subject to it, as long as they pass. Can you really not seen the role of gender in this, as opposed to sex assignment? It seems obvious to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course, by "sex" with regard to "the main reason women face discrimination and violence is due to their sex," I don't mean "the ability to detect chromosomes." And neither do the sources. Some of the sources do state "sex or gender," however. Of course, I see the role that gender expression can play in the matter. But what I stated about sex-based discrimination and sex-based violence still stands. Enough sources stress sex-based violence in terms of women's bodies or perceived ability to do things based on their anatomical sex. As for "passing," I already mentioned that. I stated, "When violence against trans women happens, it is also about their sex, but in a different way (unless the trans woman passes and is not known as transgender); it's usually due to a combination of homophobia and transphobia." "Perceived sex" also falls under "sex-based" with regard to discrimination and violence, which is why a number of trans men have talked about no longer fearing jogging at night. Men who discriminate against, or use violence against, women are not looking at people who appear to be women and wondering what their gender identity is; that is my point. Anyway, I will still list sources to my point tomorrow or the day after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer 22 Reborn, I will not continue this here, except to say that your argument that "perceived sex" is really about sex, rather than gender, flies rather in the face of the last 30 years of mainstream scholarship about gender, from what I've read. So if you find sources, I would like to see them. The Status of Women page from the Government of Canada, which I linked earlier, presents what I would consider to be a typical contemporary view about the role of gender, rather than interpreting violence in terms of "perceived sex" as being about sex assignment or anatomy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not state that "'perceived sex' is really about sex, rather than gender." I stated, "'Perceived sex' also falls under 'sex-based' with regard to discrimination and violence." And given your arguments about passing, I'm not seeing what you are stating about "flies rather in the face of the last 30 years of mainstream scholarship about gender." I will let the sources I'm going to list speak for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

In recent, gender-based scholarship, "passing" represents the full social assumption of a gender identity. Seeing "passing" in terms of "perceived sex" seems to me to revert to an older understanding represented in such identities as "transsexual" rather than "transgender". Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, Flyer22 Reborn, I understand your previous comments as arguing that violence based on "perceived sex" is "sex-based" rather than "gender-based" violence. In the context of the last 20 or 30 years of scholarship, I see this claim as EXTRAORDINARY and at least requiring some form of support/explanation based in reliable sources. But perhaps I misunderstood. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

"Perceived sex" has fallen under sex-based discrimination for years. We can see this going all the way back to a 2001 "Hatred in the Hallways: Violence and Discrimination Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students in U.S. Schools" source, from Human Rights Watch, which states, "California's bias crimes law defines gender as 'the victim's actual sex or the defendant's perception of the victim's sex, and includes the defendant's perception of the victim's identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the victim's sex at birth.' [...] Minnesota defines a 'bias offense' as 'conduct that would not constitute a crime and was committed because of the victim's or another another's actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability as defined in section 363.01, age or national origin." [...] The District of Columbia's statute covers acts demonstrating prejudice based on 'actual or perceived' sex, sexual orientation, and 'personal appearance,' among other categories. D.C. Code 22-4001 (200). Bias crime against transgender individuals is covered under the statute if it is based on perceived sex or sexual orientation. In addition, a federal district court has found that discrimination against transgender individuals may be unlawful under district human rights law's prohibition of discrimination based on personal appearance. " Is "perceived sex" always considered in the literature or in law? No. That is why this "Discrimination Based on Perceived Characteristics" The Human Rights Campaign source states, "This report is intended to squarely address the need for explicit nondiscrimination protections on the basis of both 'actual or perceived' status and to tackle common concerns regarding this language. [...] Although nondiscrimination laws are passed with the goal of protecting populations that frequently face discrimination based on a given characteristic, these laws should apply to everyone. They should not simply protect people of a specific race or sexual orientation. Instead, they are intended to declare that discrimination at its core is wrong and contrary to our shared values. Allowing for discrimination based on misperceived characteristics creates a loophole, which undermines this goal. This loophole also allows individuals and businesses engaging in prohibited discriminatory practices to evade enforcement of the law. In many jurisdictions, defendants may claim they were discriminating on a slightly different basis to get the case dismissed at summary judgment." Even this Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) source states, "There are four main types of discrimination. Direct discrimination is when someone is treated differently and not as well as other people because of their sex. For example, advertising a job and stating it is better suited to female applicants. It breaks down into three different sorts of treating someone 'less favourably' because of: their own sex (ordinary direct discrimination), their perceived sex (direct discrimination by perception), their association with someone of a particular sex (direct discrimination by association)." Now, when it comes to discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation, the literature does talk more about that.

You are distinguishing between "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence," but these two terms usually mean the same thing in the literature. And they are usually about girls and women, as is clear by the Violence against women article. That is why this 2004 The New Humanitarian source states, "Together with 'sexual violence' and 'violence against women', 'gender-based violence' is used interchangeably." It's why this "Inter-Agency Field Manual on Reproductive Health in Humanitarian Settings: 2010 Revision for Field Review" source, states, "The term 'gender-based violence' is often used interchangeably with the term 'violence against women' and 'sexual and gender-based violence'." Not much has changed in that regard since 2004 or 2010. Below is sourcing for the role that sex/biology plays in discrimination, inequality, and violence against women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, what makes you say that women getting paid less than men, or being told whether their hemlines are at an acceptable length, or that women don't need to go to school, or that they shouldn't be plumbers, is about their sex and not about their (perceived) gender? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

What makes you state or suggest that it's not about their sex, when there are various reliable sources making the "based on sex" and "because they are female" aspect clear? Why would you think it's solely or mostly because of their gender identity? How does that make sense? If not referring to perceived sex or gender identity, your use of "(perceived) gender" is odd. "Perceived gender" is often taken to mean "perceived sex." If you are not referring to perceived sex, what are you referring to? Discounting grammatical gender, gender refers to sex, gender identity, and gender role. The education aspect also includes girls who are not allowed to attend school because of menstruation. If you want me to list sources for the "based on sex" and "because they are female" aspect, I can do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I specified that it was the perceived gender that matters, because this is about the way other people treat you, and how they treat you is about how they perceive you. If you dress a baby in a frilly pink dress, people treat the baby one way; if you dress the same baby in a blue shirt with a football or a truck printed on the front, people will treat the baby another way. The baby's gender identity, if any such thing even exists in babies, and even if someone thinks that gender identity is the whole of gender or thinks that gender identity is the only true way to determine gender, has nothing to do with it. What matters is the perception of other people (the "perceived gender").

There's nothing biological that makes it inappropriate to dress a biologically male baby in a frilly pink dress, but if you do, that's a socially transgressive act that unsettles people who know that the baby is male. The same is true for an adult in a mini skirt, or an adult in a maxi skirt, or an adult in a pair of trousers: There are social rules about whether any given person "should" wear them, but no biological imperatives behind any of it. Therefore those rules are about "gender" rather than "sex". I agree with you that in almost all cases, the perceived gender aligns with the perceived sex, but it would still be ideal to precisely observe the sex/gender distinction when we can do so easily. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You can specify "perceived gender," but it's not what sources usually state. There is no clear distinguishing between "perceived sex" and "perceived gender," considering that the terms "sex" and "gender" are usually taken to mean the same thing even with the existence of the sex and gender distinction. There is a bit on perceived sex in the literature, like I noted to Newimpartial above, but perceived sex usually does correctly equate to actual sex. And either way, sources are very clear that women face discrimination and violence significantly or primarily due to their sex or gender roles; those same sources or other sources note that gender roles are based on sex. Discrimination against women is usually called sexism, and we can see in the Sexism article that "based on sex" is key, and that sexism primarily affects women and girls. Also, like I told Newimpartial above, "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence" are terms that usually mean the same thing in the literature, and they are usually about women and girls. Sources below:

Sources on sex/biology being a significant or primary reason for discrimination, inequality, and violence against women, ranging from 2004 to 2018.

This 2004 "The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination: Bias based on gender and sexual orientation" source, from Greenwood Publishing Group, pages 5-6, states, Although it is biologically appropriate and desirable for adolescent girls to increase their fatty tissue to maintain normal reproductive functioning, girls perceive any increase on body weight or size as problematic in a culture that values a lean 'masculine' body for women and devalues and criticizes a more feminine, round, shapely body [...] Kaschak (1992) described this violation of the female body as a combat zone in that 'women become the enemies of their bodies in a struggle to mold them as society wishes, to mediate and embody conflicts between the physical and demands of society' (p. 193). [...] Frederickson and Roberts (1997) delineated the consequences of shame, anxiety, and serious mental health problems that result when women's bodies are objectified. Women's guilt about not being physically perfect and desirable and taking up more than their share of space leads to feelings of guilt and self-devaluation. These feelings may be further accentuated in cultures where women are hidden from view by clothing or isolation. Because these attitudes are widespread, they result in prejudice and discrimination toward women who do not meet the cultural ideal of beauty. These women feel shamed and criticized, and their development is limited." This 2004 "Encyclopaedia of Women in South Asia: Afghanistan" source, from Gyan Publishing House, page 191, states, "Often, violence is not random - women and girls are victims simply because they are female. Thus, gender-based violence is an expression of gender inequality but it also may serve to bolster wider patterns of gender discrimination and injustice." This 2004 "Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge," from Routledge, page 1810, states, "While society may value women as mothers in principle, in practice they receive little support. Women cannot necessarily count on the sustained assistance of the men who father their children. Mothers who enter paid employment (either out of necessity or in pursuit of additional fulfillment) find that their biology is used to discriminate against them." This 2004 "Gender and Development in the Middle East and North Africa: Women in the Public Sphere" source, from World Bank Publications, page 94, states, "In MENA, gender roles and power dynamics within the household determine to a large extent women's access to and interaction with the state and public sphere. These dynamics are shaped by elements that can be grouped into what we will call the 'traditional gender paradigm.' This paradigm is based on the recognition (a) that men and women differ biologically and that these biological difference determine their social function, (b) that men and woman carry different and complementary responsibilities within the family, and (c) that they have different but equitable table rights associated with those responsibilities." This 2005 "Contemporary Japanese Thought" source, from Columbia University Press, page 61, talks about discrimination and the "natural order of their sex" with regard to women, adding that "being female becomes a negative symbol for women; it becomes that which they must deny as much as possible in order to be human." This 2006 "Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior and the Law" source, from CQ Press, page 144, states, "Although sex and gender are two separate aspects of an individuals' identity, in many legal contexts the terms are used interchangeably. What used to be called simply sex discrimination has now evolved in many cases into gender discrimination, which includes sex discrimination based strictly on biology. Some states expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, or the sexual persona adopted by an individual as opposed to simply his or her biological sex." This 2011 "Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives" source, from University of Pennsylvania Press, page 104, states, "The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ('Women's Convention' or 'Convention'; see Appendix A) obligates States Parties to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. It will be recalled that article 1 of that instrument defines 'discrimination against women' as 'any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. [...] The Committee has further explained that discrimination against women on the basis of sex includes those differences of treatment that exist 'because of stereotypical expectations, attitudes and behavior directed towards women which are based on the biological differences between women and men, and that exist 'because of the generally existing subordination of women by men.'" This 2013 "The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics" source, from Oxford University Press: Although the source says that much discrimination against women occurs because of gender roles and that "women face discrimination not only on account of their sex but on account of their gender roles," it goes on to note that these gender roles are based on sex -- what is expected of a person who is female -- and the ways in which women face all sorts of discrimination and society-inflicted issues simply because they are female. It also states, "As discussed already, gender equality can be framed primarily as a problem of direct, sex-based discrimination or as one of more far-reaching gender equity." This 2013 "Women's Studies: The Basics" source, from Routledge, page 93, states, "As the physical body intersects with culture we see both medical inequalities in the treatment of women's illnesses and in the violence done to the female body that is undernourished, beaten, or even murdered on the basis of the lower value that cultures places on women." This 2013 "The Anatomy of Adolescence (Psychology Revivals): Young people's social attitudes in Britain" source, from Routledge, page 93, states, "There are still social pressures placed on women to restrict themselves to marriage and family life. And even those who choose to pursue a profession may find themselves discriminated against because of their sex." This 2014 "Women, Crime and Criminal Justice: A Global Enquiry" source, from Routledge, pages 81-91, says "if we want to understand violence against women, it is logical to look at the youngest women: girls." It then goes on to note the various ways in which girls are discriminated against because of their sex/because they are female. These sex-based issues include sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, sexual abuse such as child sexual abuse, incest, child prostitution, sexual objectification, child marriage, female genital mutilation, and pornography. In fact, it makes sure to note that female-based victimization starts from birth, per what the World Health Organization (WHO) states. The Violence against women article also notes "from birth," per the WHO." This 2014 "Stress, Social Support, And Women" source, from Taylor & Francis, page 20, states, "Violence against women is also related to the interaction of biology and environment. Women are both at a disadvantage to protect themselves against a physical assault perpetrated by a man, and are selected as objects for violence in the case of rape. This 2015 "Trauma and Recovery on War's Border: A Guide for Global Health Workers" source, from Dartmouth College Press, page 142, states, "Gender-based violence (GBV) is defined as any harm perpetrated against a person's will that results from power inequities based on gender roles. The overwhelming majority of cases involve women and girls. [...] From infancy to death, girls and women are at risk for all types and forms of violence in ways that boys and men are not. For this reason, the term 'gender-based violence' is often used synonymously with the term 'violence against women and girls.' " The source goes on to note that girls and women live in a constant state of fear, and that this is because of their sex -- the things that come along with being female in society. This 2016 "Gendering women: Identity and mental wellbeing through the lifecourse" source, from Policy Press, page 80, states, "Some tension exists between the terms 'gender-based violence' (GBV) and 'violence against women and girls' (VAWG) that is worth noting here. While both terms are useful and have slightly different meanings and foci, they are often used interchangeably, as if by 'gender' we really mean 'women.' " The source talks about "gender-based violence" being a broader term that "refers to violence against adult women, men, trans-identified people, as well as girls and boys on grounds of their gender identity or sexual orientation." But, just like various other sources make clear, it also states, "Globally, women and girls continue to be the main targets of and victims of violence on grounds of their gender, their femaleness, and as such there is a continued need for a focus on violence against women and girls specifically (VAGW)." This 2016 "Rape Loot Pillage: The Political Economy of Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict" source, from Oxford University Press, page 48, states, "Women are frequently targeted for violence by marginalized men because they are blamed for 'stealing their rightful place at the table' (Kimmel 2005, 429) or are seen as responsible for the men's emasculation and/or marginalization. Perhaps more often, though, women are targeted because one of the most readily available means to reconstitute or retrieve the power owed to a man under patriarchy is by exercising his 'male sex privilege' (Moschetti 2005; Patemen 1988) of accessing women's bodies for personal fulfillment. This 2016 "Controversies in Equal Protection Cases in America: Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation" source, from Routledge, goes over how sex discrimination evolved to include or mean gender discrimination. For example, under its "Early Sex Discrimination Cases Narrowly Construed the Meaning of Discrimination Because of Sex" heading, it states, "When legislation prohibiting sex discrimination was first adopted, courts tended to rule that the purpose of these laws was limited to providing equal opportunities for women women and men. The typical early successful sex discrimination cases involved men or women who were treated differently because of their biological sex. For example early decisions invalidated employer rules that provided only men could be airline pilots and only women could be flight attendants." I included this source because it's one of the sources that addresses both sex discrimination and gender discrimination, but these terms usually mean the same thing in the literature. How about sexism in video gaming? We all have heard of the Gamergate controversy, right? This 2017 "Sourcebook on Violence Against Women" source, from Sage Publications, page 310, states, "Women gamers are often vilified on the basis of their sex." This 2018 "Writing Terror on the Bodies of Women: Media Coverage of Violence against Women in Guatemala" source, from Rowman & Littlefield, page 24 states that "women face certain forms of discrimination, exclusion, and human rights abuses based on their sex that require specific recognition and forms of address." This 2018 "Violence against women" WHO source states, "In conflicts, women's bodies too often become battlefields, with violence used to humiliate and oppress. Risks are amplified because women can be uprooted from their homes, and separated from their usual support networks, while social and legal protection systems are weakened or destroyed."

There isn't as much out there on women being significantly discriminated against based on their gender expression or gender identity, unless one takes "gender roles" to cover that. But, again, gender roles are based on sex -- notions about how males and females should act. Also, there is not much out there on the topic of gender expression, especially outside of gender identity, which is a big reason why WP:Student editors have had a difficult time expanding the Gender expression article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It will take some time for me to process all of these sources, but as a first pass I would like to clarify the following points:

• I believe we both agree that the terms "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence" are generally used more or less synonymously to discuss violence directed primarily at women and girls.
• I believe we both agree that characteristics of female bodies play a role in both violence and in discrimination against women, as do characteristics of male bodies (as enabling violence or falsely universalized standards of "normal").
• I believe we disagree about how often the sources are referring to "female" as anatomical sex vs. legally-recognized sex vs. socially-defined gender vs. gender identity.
• I believe we disagree whether gender roles are "based on" anatomical sex (your position), or whether they are subject to more profound processes of social construction and/or embodiment (my position). It seems obvious to me that both of these positions can be sourced, and indeed both have been sourced in this section of this Talk page.
• We also seem to disagree about whether "gender" can be reduced to "gender identity" - it seems to me that "gender roles", although they can be interpolated from outside in a way unlike some gender identities, are nevertheless part of a domain of gender and are not part of the domain of sex.
• It seems obvious to me that at least some of the sources that you have cited just now, that are not distinguishing between gender-based and web-sex-based violence, are doing so without assuming or arguing that sex (vs. gender) is the basis of this violence. If it would help advance the discussion, I could specify which of your sources I am referring to.
• It seems obvious to me that both violence against women and discrimination against women are related both to assigned sex and to gender, and that both gender roles and gender identity and expression are involved in the latter. I see nothing in the sources provided to date that would call this into question.

So I will leave these points, I think, as a signpost to further discussion, which I hope will contribute (eventually) to help clarify what role sex and gender ought to play in this article. Also, I do very much appreciate the effort involved in your pulling these sources together. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Although I've stated that gender roles are based on anatomical sex, I'm not saying that they are not a product of socially-constructed behavior. With the exception of the role that biology plays in gendered behavior, gender roles are all about socially-constructed behavior. Obviously. I'm saying that these roles are given to people based on their sex. Along with sex assignment, comes the gender assignment of "boy" or "girl" and the accompanying gender roles. Sources support that. As for "female," above I made sure to include sources that focus on the words "sex" and "biology." One can take "sex" to mean "gender," but I think it's clear that the sources are primarily focusing on biology/people's status as female, which is why they talk about women's bodies and things like sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, sexual objectification, and female genital mutilation. Also, to repeat, excluding grammatical gender, "gender" refers to biological/anatomical sex, gender roles, or to gender identity. Out of those three options, as you know, it's most often equated with biological/anatomical sex. I'm not going to think that a source means gender identity unless it states "gender identity." I also reiterate that there is not a lot of material in the literature on the term/topic "gender expression," especially outside of gender identity. I've looked. I've been at the Gender expression article when student editors have edited it. That stated, although, as seen at Talk:Gender expression, I was against a Gender expression article, I'm not that against it these days. I don't understand what you mean by your "it seems obvious to me that at least some of the sources that [I] have cited just now, that are not distinguishing between gender-based and web-based violence" sentence. You stated, "It seems obvious to [you] that both violence against women and discrimination against women are related both to assigned sex and to gender." But how you are defining gender, especially when sources are clear that "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence" usually mean the same thing in the literature, and do indeed often talk about biology/anatomy with regard to women being discriminated against or facing violence? "Sex-based discrimination" and "gender-based discrimination" usually mean the same thing as well. What I disagree with is the notion that women are as affected by their identity as women as they are by their assigned/physical sex. It is their physical sex that leads to the assignment of "girl," the accompanying gender roles, and things like sexual objectification. Like the WHO notes, discrimination and violence against women starts from birth. In fact, they make it clear that it starts pre-birth in some cases (the topic of sex-selective abortion); so that is before any gender identity is formed.

As for the rest, no problem. I prefer trying to understand and work with editors than just being in dispute with them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

While I certainly can't reply to all if that at once, and do it justice, I think it might be helpful to me to start at the end. Of course sex-selective abortion operates prior to the making of gender (from the perspective if the unborn, at leas) and practices such as selective exposure of infants operate at the moment of sex assignment itself. I for one would not question these facts.

But I (and sources like the Ministry of the Status of Women, in Canada) would absolutely insist that gender roled and gender identities are absolutely crucial to both institutional discrimination and violence against women. Pregnancy is not the major cause of women's differential labour market outcomes; institutional arrangements around child rearing and the gendering of occupations are. Sexual violence is not produced primarily by differential musculature, hormones and orifices; it is primarily produced by gendered differences in encouraged/expected/tolerated behaviour and in recourse to mechanisms of social control.

I believe both of my statements about the predominance of these factors are backed by scholarship that insists on the priority of gender over sex in these phenomena and in the fundamental assumption that gender can no longer be reduced to or explained in terms of sex assignment. But once again, I am happy to continue the discussion and to cite or interpret sources as needed. Newimpartial (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Unless talking about trans women, I just can't agree that "gender identities are absolutely crucial to both institutional discrimination and violence against women." I'm not seeing that in the literature. And without sources other than the Canadian source you keep citing in a way that I don't believe is accurate, I'm not going to take your word for it. Yes, women are discriminated against by people simply knowing their gender identity without having seen them, since many men see "female" or "woman" on a form or similar and pass or, if online, decide to harass that woman. I get harassed on Wikipedia by male editors who know I'm female (usually by IPs, registered newbies, or past disgruntled editors I've helped get blocked and/or banned). But is the gender identity aspect as "crucial to both institutional discrimination and violence against women" as physical sex is? I'm not seeing that. And as a woman, I've not experienced it. Throughout my life, it has significantly been more about my physical appearance than it has been about my gender identity. And although we are living in the Internet age now, I'm certain that the vast majority of women share my experience on that. But since this is about women in general and Wikipedia doesn't go by the personal experience of Wikipedians, I've looked to sources. I'm reading other sources now, older and newer, and the focus is still on sex/biology and sometimes gender roles being "absolutely crucial to both institutional discrimination and violence against women." This is reflected by the sources I cited above, and I'd rather not keep citing source after source. Yes, I saw your autocorrect fix and this accompanying edit. I still don't understand that statement. To repeat, I made sure to include sources that focus on the words "sex" and "biology." I couldn't avoid the gender aspect, and I didn't try to, but the sex/biology aspect is there as clear as day. The 2013 "The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics" source states, "As discussed already, gender equality can be framed primarily as a problem of direct, sex-based discrimination or as one of more far-reaching gender equity." The source is stressing both sex/biology and the gender roles/gendered behavior aspect. When it comes to gender identity, the literature mainly concerns trans women and other trans people, including those who identify as non-binary/genderqueer. In general, when it comes to discrimination and violence against women, sources focus on various sex-based things/women's bodies. They also obviously touch on gender roles/gendered behavior. I am not seeing any "priority of gender over sex in these phenomena." What I keep seeing are sources like this 2008 "Culturally Alert Counseling: A Comprehensive Introduction" source, from Sage Publications. On page 450, in its "Women and Career" section, it states, "In women's cases, career goals tend to be related to whether a female believes she can succeed based on her biological sex or whether she will be discriminated against due to being a woman (Betz, 2002)." Yeah, that's from 2008 and it cites a 2002 source, but it's not like recent sources do not state same thing or similar.

Also, it is not up to us to think that sources mean "gender" when they state "sex," especially since "gender" can mean three different things. And I've already addressed the three things that "gender" means in the context of these topics (keeping in mind that "gender expression" is not talked about as much and is typically discussed in relation to gender identity); I've noted that "gender" is usually taken to mean the same thing as "sex," especially with regard to discrimination and violence against women. But when a source on topics affecting women state "sex," they usually do mean physical sex, and we can see this when they focus on women's bodies and other things that are sex-based in the strict sense. You stated, "Sexual violence is not produced primarily by differential musculature, hormones and orifices." That is your opinion. None of the sources are focusing on hormones, but many do focus on women's bodies, and that includes the WHO. Yes, culture affects attitudes toward sexual objectification and sexual violence. But when a man focuses on a woman's body, he is not considering her gender identity. If he decides to fondle or rape her? It is not about her gender identity. It is indeed about her body (and, yes, power for those who take the "rape is about power" stance). When he rapes her, he is indeed expecting a vagina unless sodomy is the focus or unless he is aware that the woman is a transgender woman without a vagina. If he finds out that she is transgender while attempting to rape her, he is very likely to physically harm her in some way and/or kill her. He might even rape her anyway, but he clearly was not expecting a trans woman. And women's gender expression? Whatever gender expression she is showcasing doesn't negate her physical appearance and men reading her as female.

Obviously, some sources go out of their way to first distinguish sex and gender. You brought up a Canadian source. Well, this 2016 "Introduction to Sociology – 2nd Canadian Edition" source, in its "Chapter 12. Gender, Sex, and Sexuality" section, states, "Sex refers to physical or physiological differences between males and females, including both primary sex characteristics (the reproductive system) and secondary characteristics such as height and muscularity. [...] The distinction between sex and gender is key to being able to examine gender and sexuality as social variables rather than biological variables. [...] The experience of transgendered people also demonstrates that a person's sex, as determined by his or her biology, does not always correspond with his or her gender. Therefore, the terms sex and gender are not interchangeable. A baby boy who is born with male genitalia will be identified as male. As he grows, however, he may identify with the feminine aspects of his culture. Since the term sex refers to biological or physical distinctions, characteristics of sex will not vary significantly between different human societies. For example, it is physiologically normal for persons of the female sex, regardless of culture, to eventually menstruate and develop breasts that can lactate. The signs and characteristics of gender, on the other hand, may vary greatly between different societies as Margaret Mead's research noted. [...] In Canada, there has not been the same formal deliberations on the legal meanings of sex and gender. The distinction between sex as a physiological attribute and gender as social attribute has been used without controversy." The source goes on to talk about the 2002 case of Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society. In its "Making Connections: Sociological Research Being Male, Being Female, and Being Healthy" section, it states, "In 1971, Broverman and Broverman conducted a groundbreaking study on the traits mental health workers ascribed to males and females. When asked to name the characteristics of a female, the list featured words such as unaggressive, gentle, emotional, tactful, less logical, not ambitious, dependent, passive, and neat. The list of male characteristics featured words such as aggressive, rough, unemotional, blunt, logical, direct, active, and sloppy (Seem and Clark, 2006). Later, when asked to describe the characteristics of a healthy person (not gender specific), the list was nearly identical to that of a male. This study uncovered the general assumption that being female is associated with being somewhat unhealthy or not of sound mind. This concept seems extremely dated, but in 2006, Seem and Clark replicated the study and found similar results. Again, the characteristics associated with a healthy male were very similar to that of a healthy (genderless) adult. The list of characteristics associated with being female broadened somewhat but did not show significant change from the original study (Seem and Clark, 2006). This interpretation of feminine characteristics may help us one day to better understand gender disparities in certain illnesses, such as why one in eight women can be expected to develop clinical depression in her lifetime (National Institute of Mental Health 1999). Perhaps these diagnoses are not just a reflection of women's health, but also a reflection of society's labeling of female characteristics, or the result of institutionalized sexism." So sources like this touch on how society views women, and I'm all for societal views of women being in the article. All that I have done is question the notion that women are as affected by their identity as women as they are by their assigned/physical sex, and I've explained why (with sources). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I really don't want this to turn into a (zero-sum) argument, as opposed to a discussion, so I don't want to go point by point if this can be avoided. But clearly there are gender roles (institutionalized or not) as well as assigned sex and gender identity. Why do you seem constantly to assign gender roles - to which your own sources refer - to be about sex rather than gender? It seems obvious to me, for example, that the distribution of child care and of housework, after the weaning of infants at any rate, is nearly 100% a matter of gender roles and early 0% about (male and female) physiology. It is therefore not surprising that national and cultural differences in this area are significant. Isn't it clear, then, that this important area in women's equality is about gender rather than sex?

Also, if you believe that what men and women see as your "physical appearance" is your anatomical sex rather than your gender, I don't know what to tell you, except that I cannot believe that this is actually true. I for one find gender (and gender expression) much, much easier than sex to see on a daily basis, with remarkably few exceptions. If I didn't have gender to go on, I would probably classify people by height and weight, which are both much more reliably observed than sex IME. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what is left for me to state to you on this matter. Your "Why do [I] seem constantly to assign gender roles - to which [my] own sources refer - to be about sex rather than gender?" question is odd to me. I already relayed, "Although I've stated that gender roles are based on anatomical sex, I'm not saying that they are not a product of socially-constructed behavior. With the exception of the role that biology plays in gendered behavior, gender roles are all about socially-constructed behavior. Obviously. I'm saying that these roles are given to people based on their sex. Along with sex assignment, comes the gender assignment of 'boy' or 'girl' and the accompanying gender roles. Sources support that." That is why your "Isn't it clear, then, that this important area in women's equality is about gender rather than sex?" question is not something I can agree with. Without an infant's sex, none of these gender roles would follow. Gender roles are not the main reason that girls are sexually abused. It is not the main reason why women face sexual objectification (which is about their bodies) or rape. If women were not physically weaker, on average, would society be as male-dominated as it is? No. I don't agree with any notion that it would be. Intimate partner violence would not be as gendered toward women as it is if the biological differences between males and females were not factors. It seems that you take the stance that gender roles are not based on a person's sex. This contradicts the literature. Should I now include a variety of reliable sources making it clear that gender roles are given to people based on their sex? Because that is what I mean by "gender roles are based on sex." They are given to people based on their sex. I've included sources that focus on biology and sex with regard to the discrimination, inequality, and violence that women face. None of those sources focus on gender identity. The vast majority of the literature, old and new, does not focus on gender identity with regard to the discrimination, inequality, and violence that women face. The sources I included that speak of gender roles are not equating gender roles with sex (although some do note that gender roles are based on sex). I have not stated that gender roles do not contribute to discrimination, inequality, and violence that women face. I have stated that gender roles are based on sex and that I dispute the notion that women are as affected by their identity as women as they are by their assigned/physical sex.

As for "if [I] believe that what men and women see [as my] 'physical appearance" is [my] anatomical sex rather than [my] gender, [you] don't know what to tell [me]"? What? You don't have to tell me anything. It's not a belief. It is something that I and many or most other women have experienced. What is "gender" supposed to mean in this case? Gender expression? I can tell you right now that it is not about the clothes I am wearing or whatever femininity I'm showcasing. It's about being read as female due to my physical appearance. The Canadian source I cited above states, "Sex refers to physical or physiological differences between males and females, including both primary sex characteristics (the reproductive system) and secondary characteristics such as height and muscularity." That is exactly what I mean by "physical appearance" in this case. Yes, we can talk about trans women who pass, but "pass" is the keyword in this case. Simply wearing feminine clothes and expressing femininity will not get them read as female. I have gay male friends who are as feminine as they want to be; some are androgynous, but they still usually never get read as female. And I stated "usually" because the one time that one of them was questioned on whether or not he was female, his voice certainly gave him away once he spoke. Men also typically have deeper voices than women, as a result of their sex. Furthermore, it is well-known that trans women have a significantly more difficult time passing than trans men do, and this is due to biology; it's not due to some gender stereotypes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

We do indeed appear to be headed for an impasse, but I would use this opportunity to clarify that your "gay male friends" are presumably not presenting or expressing a female gender identity, so they are being read correctly as androgynous (or feminine) male-gendered bodies. Meanwhile, your trans friends presumably either have their gender read "correctly" while passing or "incorrectly" when overwritten by elements of their sex assignment. But in no situation I can think of besides a nude beach (or an orgy) do people routinely read bodies in terms of anatomical sex without the layering of gender. I also find it quite absurd that you take what "you and most women" experience about "physical appearance" as some kind of epistemological ground, without some kind of sourcing in comparative experience. I have been looking this morning at the current state of scholarship about the social discernment of sex and gender, and probably the most mainstream RS on the topic seems to be Richard Lippa, for whom there is certainly no binary reading of "biological sex" into "men" and "women" without a good deal of cultural and behavioural mediation. This is the kind of moderate stance that I would like to see reflected in the eventual article here, not one based primarily on chromosomes or orifices.

As far as gender roles being "based on assigned sex", this is clearly not always the case where assigned sex can be changed through a range of medical, therapeutic and legal modalities, as is the case in most Western countries at the moment, to varying degrees. It is also the case that gender roles themselves have been successfully changed, supplanted or eliminated in various contexts in the last two generations. So to say that they are "based on anatomical sex" in most cases still seems to me to be absurd. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just had to interject. My impression of society, not just my own behavior but that of most everyone else, is that they read bodies in terms of anatomical sex. Frankly it is many of your assertions I find absurd. Read up on secondary sex characteristics. I can tell who a woman is by her feminine face and her body which is clearly shaped a certain way regardless of clothing and her voice is generally unmistakable. This is why trans women generally seek to emulate these characteristics and trans men move away from them. This is why a woman in jeans and a t-shirt is obviously a woman as much as a woman in a dress. Crossroads1 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Adults can be identified as male or female just from their faces.[2] I suppose that someone with Prosopagnosia might have difficulty with it, but most people do this very, very easily. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

My gay male friends (no need to put that in scare quotes) not presenting or expressing a female gender identity has not a thing to do with them not being read as female. It has to do with them not having female secondary sex characteristics, which are very real and are not socially-constructed, no matter how much some gender theorists go on about biological sex being socially-constructed. This is why so many trans women, including a number of my friends or acquaintances who are trans women, do not pass as women and talk about it being a real issue for them. Two of them do not try to pass and indeed question the need to pass; they, like some other transgender people, take issues with the notion of passing. Most of the trans men that I know couldn't pass either until they had been on testosterone for at least a year. One of them still does not pass as male because he is not on testosterone. People "routinely read bodies in terms of anatomical sex" because of secondary sex characteristics; sexual dimorphism exists for a valid reason. Yes, there are some people who are read as the sex they are not, but (without getting into talk about checking for one's chromosomes) people are usually correctly read as the sex they are. I never stated that I'm speaking for all women; in fact, I was clear that "since this is about women in general and Wikipedia doesn't go by the personal experience of Wikipedians, I've looked to sources." For me, it's always about what the literature states and with due weight; many editors on this site know that.

The perception of arguing based on personal opinion is one reason why I usually keep my personal life off Wikipedia. I try to edit as neutrally as possible. And by "neutral," I do mean Wikipedia's idea of neutral. Doesn't mean that I never express my personal viewpoint on talk pages, though, obviously. Is my experience of physical sex playing a far more significant role than gender identity shared by the vast majority of women? I'm certain that it is. And the literature supports me on that. If it was significantly about, more so about, or equally about gender identity or gender expression (again, a term that, at this point in time, is not used nearly as much in the literature and is used more so in the context of gender identity), sources would state, or at least indicate, that. They don't. You speak of sources. I've cited them. I do not need to list some comparative study of cisgender women and trans women on this matter. The vast majority of women are cisgender. When cisgender women state their experiences, trans women should listen, not act as though they know more about what it means to be a woman, given the sex and socialization differences between cisgender and transgender women. I listen to trans women. It doesn't mean we are always going to agree. When cisgender women state their experiences as women, some trans women get the impression or believe that the cisgender women are trying to exert primacy or negate trans women's experiences. It's not about that, at least for some cisgender women; it's about cisgender and transgender women usually having very different experiences as women, especially in the case of trans women who did not discover their identity as women or come out as transgender until they were adults, with some not going on their new path until much later in life.

As for "gender roles being based on sex", like this 2009 "Essential Concepts for Healthy Living" source, from Jones & Bartlett Publishers, page 143, states, "Throughout the world, obvious biological differences form the basis for traditional gender roles. In many cultures, for example, women are responsible for routine child-bearing and household management. This traditional gender assignment likely developed for a variety of reasons, such as a woman's biological role in giving birth and nursing infants. It is also likely that because men, in general, are physically stronger than women, their customary roles have been protecting and providing for their families, especially in hunter-gatherer or agrarian societies." The source also states, "In addition to biological factors, culture (often determined by race and ethnicity) and religion heavily influence sexual attitudes and behaviors." But I haven't disputed the latter. What I have stated, like the source states, is that gender roles are based on a person's sex/biology. This 2011 "Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Class: The Sociology of Group Conflict and Change" source," from Pine Forge Press, page 25, states, "From birth, the biological differences between the sexes form the basis for different gender roles, or societal expectations about proper behavior, attitudes, and personality traits of males and females." Like the previous source, it goes on to talk about the hunter-gatherer aspect for males and nurturing aspect for females. It also talks about gender inequality and the social construction of gender. More recent sources state the same or similar. But I'm not going to keep listing sources that support my statements. It's clear that you will believe what you want to believe. As far as ideology goes, I can see that we have different views. As for sex changing, people have different views on that, depending on how one defines sex, such as if defining it beyond chromosomes like you are. Altering sexual characteristics, as is done with sex reassignment therapy, is different, but some define that as changing sex. In the case of binary trans women, they usually do take on the gender roles of women; that they are trans women doing it doesn't make those gender roles any less based on sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Just two small points for now: how can trans people who take on the gender role not corresponding to their assigned sex be basing the roles on anatomical sex? This seems to me to be an incomprehensible claim.

Also, I have succesefully completed graduate courses on the anthropological literature on sex, gender and the division of labour. Apart from trying to avoid a directly confrontational discussion on principle, another reason I am trying to keep my interventions brief and narrowly focused is than I am having difficulty with the condescending tone I can't help but increasingly detect in your comments here. I have no desire to "hash things out" in a zero-sum format in which you, perhaps unwittingly, end up backing Crossroad1's proposals. Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Your small point about trans people with regard to gender roles makes no sense to me. I really can't grasp your line of thinking on that. Your small point about your graduate courses and condescending tone is interesting since I don't talk about my professions/qualifications on Wikipedia (keeping WP:Expert in mind) and since I have consistently found your comments to be condescending in tone. I'm not going to weigh in on Crossroad1's RfC; that is why I didn't vote when commenting there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I myself would like to address your first point as I think I see what you are saying. Remember the sometimes maligned phrase "gender is a social construct"? The term is social construct, not individual. A trans woman takes on a woman's role, created by society, for biological females. Thus gender as a set of social ideas is based on biological sex. Exceptions do not take away from this, the pattern is clear, as Flyer's many sources show. Crossroads1 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

My sense is that the main point of contention here is what is meant by "based on". Are those two little words taken to mean "derived from", or "influenced by", or "signified by", or "paradigmatically referencing", or something else? The only one of those senses that I see the the recent, reliable sources as roundly rejecting is the first ("derived from"), but that is also the sense I see you and Flyer trying to incorporate in the article as well as in this discussion. Perhaps you can see my dilemma. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I certainly am not arguing for any sort of biological determinism. Flyer does not seem to be either. My reading of RS is that people have biological sexes, and meanings/ideas/roles are attached to these by society. These socially constructed ideas are called gender. But society attaches these to people on the basis of their sex. Trans and intersex people are 'exceptions' in some sense within this system. At any rate, further debate on this may just bloat the talk page further. Per WP:NOTFORUM, maybe we should stick to concrete proposals regarding the encyclopedia. And I freely admit I am partially responsible for keeping this going way longer than was necessary. Crossroads1 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No one has seen me trying to incorporate anything into the article. Tweak things? Yes. Revert things? Yes. Restore things, such as the gender identity aspect to the lead? Yes. And "derived from"? No one said anything about "derived from" until Newimpartial's post. And there are no "recent, reliable sources roundly rejecting" any such thing. On Wikipedia, we are meant to stick to what the sources state, not interpret them with regard to our own meaning, anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

note: the following discussion originally followed the comment of 00:31, 11 July 2019 by Flyer 22 Reborn, which that user has moved up the thread in a way that leaves the following section out of context. Note: See here and here. Newimpartial moved their comment in a way that took the material out of context. The comment that they moved was outdented and clearly addressed to me; my reply directly follows. It is not confusing in that format. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Note"' - actually, the sequence and context of this exchange was perfectly preserved prior to this move by Flyer 22 Reborn, which was contrary to the intent of the TPG. But whatevs - I tried to yes-and it, and instead just get friction in return. Newimpartial (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Contrary to the intent of the TPG? Sighs. The above is more useless debating from Newimpartial. As the edit history shows, all I did was move my comment to where it originally was. It didn't disturb anything or cause anything to be confusing, unlike Newimpartial moving their comment and unnecessarily causing this friction they speak of, and now this collapsed thread that begins with friction unrelated to the below commentary in this collapse box. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC) I will try once again at clarification, aand to avoid a zero-sum game (and I am sorry that my tone has come across as consescending to you in the past, while in equal measure perplexed as to how). So to take the point about trans people and gender roles, it would seem to be either impossible or "unnatural" for people to take on gender roles that are opposed to their sex assignment, if gender roles are "based on" anatomical sex. Perhaps another way to look at this is in terms of the role of secondary sexual characteristics themselves. Does violence and discrimination against women arise from breasts and beards, or are breasts and beards deployed as part of constructions of gender that give rise to violence against women (cultural understandings such as "Madonna/whore" that interpolate women's bodies for violence) and discrimination (cultural understandings of authority that use such secondary sexual characteristics as vocal timbre and facial structure as markers for the legitimation of power). There is quite a lot of literature - only small pieces of which I have cited - that makes this point, that violence and discrimination against women operate primarily thorough gender roles and gender power dynamics rather than directly through anatomical sex. Most of the sources that you yourself have cited make this point themselves, though it would seem churlish to me to go back through them and cite the relevant passages back at you. I would much rather simply hope for a contemplation whether "based on", giving primacy to sex over gender, might not actually be the formulation most reflective of the most recent and reliable sources in this field. Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Newimpartial, I don't see a need to continue this discussion with you. But I will state this much: That you can't see how your tone has come across as condescending and has made me want to state something along the lines of "I know the literature and I know what I'm talking about" is perplexing to me. It's enough to make one talk about their professions/qualifications. Take your commentary about perceived sex, for example, until I cited a few sources on that. Take your "absurd" commentary, when things you state (such as your emphasis on gender identity) are not supported in the literature. Even your "it would seem churlish to me to go back through them and cite the relevant passages back at you" comment is condescending. And you have recently focused on gender roles when I never disputed the impact of gender roles. How many times must I state that? You relayed "that violence and discrimination against women operate primarily thorough gender roles and gender power dynamics rather than directly through anatomical sex. Most of the sources that [I myself] have cited make this point themselves." No, most of them don't. And none of them state that. You are distinguishing gender roles and sex in ways the sources do not. I cited two sources that make it clear that sex forms the basis of gender roles, and you are still commenting in a way that seeks to separate gender roles from sex. The two -- sex and gender roles -- are thoroughly intertwined. That women are significantly or primarily discriminated against on the basis of their sex is a fact, and is supported by numerous reliable sources, including a number of sources I cited. And these sources are not using "sex" to mean "gender roles." This is even clearer when they state "biological sex." Unless talking about trans women, no sources are focusing on gender identity with regard to discrimination and violence against women in nearly the same way as they do with regard to physical sex and/or physical sex and gender roles. Anything else I state on this matter would be redundant to what I've already stated. And I'm tired of providing sources that relay exactly what I've stated. And one more thing: Scientists generally agree that hormones, such as testosterone, play a significant role in gendered behavior and other behavior. We can talk about society contributing to or encouraging violence against women as much as we want to, but researchers highly doubt that the reason that males are significantly more violent and sexually deviant than women are is due solely to culture. The fact that the vast majority of rapists, child sexual abusers, pedophiles and serial killers are male cannot be summed up as "it's due to culture." It is highly doubtful that if it weren't for cultural influences, we'd see just as many female rapists, child sexual abusers, pedophiles, and serial killers. These are all topics that I am well-versed in; so I know what the researchers state on the matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC) And that specific straw man argument ("it's due to culture"? Really? I specifically said "operate through"), in reply to my rather rather earnest attempt at clarification in my last reply, would be my cue to stop trying to engage with you, Flyer22 Reborn. There is clearly nothing helpful to emerge here. Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Was not a straw man argument. I just wanted to add a different aspect to why male violence and deviancy exists. If we're done here, good. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Introducing an argument that nobody in a discussion is actually making, in order to refute it, is either a straw man or a slippery slope argument of some kind. That particular argument, presented in this context, is hard to see as anything other than a gratuitous attack. Also note that male violence is part of the topic of the article Man, not this article. Newimpartial (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC) "[A] straw man or a slippery slope argument of some kind"? Nope. An attack? Nope. Your "particular argument, presented in this context" piece makes me think you think it was transphobic or was leaning in that direction. I am well-aware of people who make arguments about trans women in relation aggression/violence. I was not attempting any type of attack or transphobia with that comment, but I perhaps should have kept the "trans women in relation aggression/violence" aspect in mind. I made that comment because I am not in the habit of looking at male violence from solely or primarily through a "constructions of gender that give rise to violence against women" lens. Any time I see something regarding it, my brain goes to the knowledge I accumulated from the fields I work in. Talk of rape culture is important and all, but I don't just look at culture on the matters of male sexual violence, including rape. And as for male violence being a part of the topic of the article Man, not this article? We were talking about male violence. And male violence is a part of this article -- Woman. I'd rather not discuss anything further with you on these matters. And for anyone wondering, male violence (including domestic violence) in relation to deviancy is discussed in the literature. I'm not a big fan of the word deviancy, given its previous use for homosexuality and for some other aspects of human nature outside of the typical that should not be called deviant, but enough sources do use the word deviant or deviancy even today; some specify deviancy as "crime" when talking about males and their violence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Violence against women is part of this article; male violence (and "deviance") is part of Man. The two topics overlap significantly but are by no means synonymous, and substituting one for the other above was quite unjustified. Newimpartial (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Violence against women is primarily committed by men; it is male violence. And in the context of enough of the literature, it is deviant. And "substituting"? Sighs. Now you are just arguing to argue. We're done here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Currently, there isn't anything in the Man article about male violence anyway. "Hunter-gatherer societies" is not what is usually meant by "male violence." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I looked at other sources as well. This is why I told WanderingWanda, "I've looked at encyclopedias and academic books for how they may define 'woman.' I'm just not seeing sources defining 'woman' in some other way, including in the way [WanderingWanda] proposed." Some of what you brought up with the sources you listed above are covered in some feminism articles and in the Femininity article, where Simone de Beauvoir's views are included. Given the substantial overlap, it's a good thing that the Woman article has not become a content fork of the Femininity article. You stated, " First, and perhaps most interestingly, Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911) simply skips the definition altogether [...]." Not exactly; it notes, "The very word 'woman' (O. Eng. wifmann), etymologically meaning a wife (or the wife division of the human race, the female of the species Homo)." That can be argued as presenting a definition. We can see that "female of the species Homo" is there; that is not about gender identity. I wouldn't state that the "Etymology" section of the Woman article should include specific authors' definitions or views. Those views are, after all, those specific authors' views. That's why WP:In-text attribution should be used in those cases. That's not what etymology is about. I'm not saying that you are suggesting that we should put that material in the Etymology section. You did suggest to have it reworked, which might mean including etymology with authors' views, but that's not ideal. What you cited would, however, fit in the Terminology section. As for the "adult" specifier, it's obviously important for the lead (whether in the first sentence or second sentence, but I stand by my view that it should be in the first sentence). Same goes for the "adult" specifier in the Man article. After all, "woman" usually does not refer to a child. And, yes, "man" can mean different things, but the literature on men is overwhelmingly about adult men, not boys or underage teenagers. Of course, what is an adult can be subject to dispute as well.

Netoholic, it's a just a "views" matter. I don't see it as problematic for the article to include different views on what a woman is. But if we were taking about stuffing the lead with different views of authors, that's a no from me. A brief summary that different views on what it means to be a woman exist is all that is needed for the lead. If we were talking about falsely balancing this article so that it's half about cisgender woman and half about trans women, I would be against that. I made this clear before just last year, with my "07:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)" post. And we can see that other editors above have expressed due weight concerns with regard to how much material to devote to transgender and intersex women in this article. In the 2018 discussion I linked to, I stated, in part, "This article is not simply about defining 'woman.' Even if it was, it's still the case that the vast majority of reliable sources on the definition of 'woman,' recent or otherwise, do not explicitly consider trans women or non-binary people (meaning the non-binary people who identify as a woman one day and not as a woman the next, and the ones who describe themselves as a blend that happens to include 'woman')." I stated that because the majority view of a woman is still the cisgender viewpoint, the article should not be artificially balanced to be about both cisgender and trans women, "which would hardly be any different than merging the Trans woman article into this article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The first book offers this explicitly as a proposed definition:

"S is a woman iff_df S is systematically subordinated along some dimension (economic, political, legal, social, etc.), and S is “marked” as a target for this treatment by observed or imagined bodily features presumed to be evidence of a female's biological role in reproduction."

The iff_df means "if and only if, as a definition". The later part of the book then says that, in practice, multiple definitions could be valid and that you need to choose an appropriate definition for your context. What it means to be a woman in the context of, say, infertility could be different from what it means to be a woman in the context of, say, street harassment.

This and the other definitions are also described at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femapproach-analy-cont/#DefiWome if anyone wants to have a quick summary. I think that all of these should be included in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, I have no issue with covering different points of view on what it means to be a woman or on what womanhood means, as long as it's done with due weight. I'm iffy on referring to authors' personal POVs as "definitions." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Those are very widely cited scholarly sources, and the one I quoted is explicitly labeled as a definition. They should not be denigrated as mere "personal POVs".

They're not the only ones we should cite, of course. We should also be citing at least one athletic body, as athletes can be disqualified from Women's sports if they don't meet the definition of "woman" for their sport. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

"Very widely cited scholarly sources" does not equate to "these are actual definitions of what it means to be a woman or what womanhood means." They are personal POVs, which is why we wouldn't state them in Wikipedia's voice, whereas we do state that a woman is "a female human being" in Wikipedia's voice. We don't present the personal POVs of what femininity is as definitions of femininity in the Femininity article either. Virginia Woolf's views, which are widely cited, are just her views in that article. Simone de Beauvoir's, which are widely cited, are just her views in that article. Julia Serano's views, which are widely cited with regard to transgender topics, are just her views in that article. If you want to get into the topic of transgender and intersex women in women's sports, I'm fine with that. Of course, that should be covered. But both sides on that matter, such as the those concerning trans women, should be presented. The sources on the matter are not about them not "meet[ing] the definition of 'woman' for their sport." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• I generally agree with WAID that the Etymology terminology (or some appropriately-titled) section should be expanded to include, in an NPOV/DUE way, the main viewpoints (such as those posted above), and with Bilorv that the lead should be expanded (and a summary of the etymology section should be part of the lead of course). – Levivich 20:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  Leviv, why should the content that WhatamIdoing pointed to be in the Etymology section as opposed to the Terminology section or a section with a different title? How do authors' personal views about what a woman or womanhood is belong in the Etymology section? No need to ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  Good point; I updated my comment. – Levivich 20:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

"A woman is a female human being." and "Some women are transgender and have a male sex assignment" are surely incompatible given the definition used on the female page.

I appreciate it's a hot button topic but either the first is correct or the second is. They can't both be based on current usage.

Unless I'm blind I see no detail within the article on the term women also referring to gender identity as opposed to the more traditional usage/concept of sex identity.

Either the gender identity aspect should be added or the transgender comment should be removed because right now its a contradictory bolt on without justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.80.152 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Many if not most researchers ignore postmodern philosophy, so any material about it that gets added should be minimal and not overrun any section it gets added to. Crossroads1 (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Specific lead proposal

I had edited the lead to this:

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

Like most other female mammals, a woman's genome typically inherits an X chromosome from her mother and another X chromosome from her father. The female fetus produces larger amounts of estrogens and smaller amounts of androgens than a male fetus. Differences in the relative amounts of these sex steroids are largely responsible for the physiological differences that distinguish women from men. During puberty, these hormones result in the development of secondary sexual characteristics. Women with typical genetic development are usually capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause. However, there are exceptions to the above for some transgender and intersex women.

But it was reverted as it was felt consensus on it had not yet been reached.

This proposed lead parallels the lead at man. There is no reason for an encyclopedia to be more mealy-mouthed defining 'woman' than 'man.' The vast majority of writing that refers to 'women', whether in journalism, psychology, sociology, economics, medicine, law, casual usage, and so on, does so with an apparent definition that is the essentially the same as that mentioned above. It is therefore extremely undue to give weight in the lead to postmodern philosophical debates that frankly, most people, including academics, simply ignore.

I suggest a sort of straw poll on this lead so we can see where we are at. I suggest !voting in favor if you think it is an improvement, even if you have critiques. As I said before, 'female' is an adjective that does not exclude trans or intersex women, and the current lead gives undue length to talking about these tiny groups. And this is only about the lead, so it does not have to do with later possible edits to other sections. Crossroads1 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Crossroads1: If you would like a more formal discussion than an informal poll, you could try an RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing "postmodern" about the current definition of "woman" in this article. I offer the current Canadian statistical definitions and official discussion of gender-based violence as evidence for the state of recent, reliable sources.

Also, apart from the discussion by human geneticists and some biologists, there is little discussion of chromosomes in the discussion of women, so the text you propose seems massively UNDUE. Frankly, this page receives much more editorial attention than does Man, so if anything it would be appropriate to revise that page to follow this model, if the RS supported this, than to follow the course you propose. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The current lead spends about 35% of its length on less than 1% of the population. This is grossly undue. There is no postmodern philosophy in the lead yet, but there seemed to be some suggestion of that above. The topic of 'man' is much less politically controversial, so it seems a good way to sidestep these hot button issues and stay NPOV. Your two sources are basically a single source (the government of Canada). How about instead the US government, a much larger nation, and the Australian government. And these are just the first two I looked up. And they both ignore gender identity and the gender/sex distinction entirely. I am open to removing the chromosome sentence and adding some info to the lead about social roles and meanings of womanhood and their position in current society, as the article itself does; but my main point is that biological femaleness is extremely closely intertwined in RS and excessive length should not be spent on trans and intersex women in the lead (more detail on them later may be appropriate of course). Crossroads1 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that WP proceeds on the basis of recent, reliable sources, not which nation has a bigger d!ck. Also, what statistical organization has a better reputation in the area of demographic statistics, Statistics Canada or census.gov? I'll wait. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, the relevant Australian RS would be this. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

My point is that most sources discussing women do so without getting bogged down in word games. We should be able to do the same. My reference to America has nothing to do with metaphorical genitalia; but it shows that your choice of Canada was cherry picked. Crossroads1 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Since you picked Australia, where the demographers say essentially the same thing as Canada's, was that cherry picked too? Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I should have said the specific pages chosen were cherry picked. This kind of material delving into different definitions is fine later on, but is just as inapproriate for the lead as a detailed discussion of biology. Even then, we must watch extremely carefully not to give undue prominence to any particular critical theorist, and give due weight to common usage as synonymous with female. Crossroads1 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The common usage certainly is synonymous with female. I believe you and I agree that "woman" and "female" are both terms that are often used to refer to assigned sex and to gender, often without distinguishing the two significations. My concern is to retain clarity in the lede that the term "Woman" refers to a sex assignment category, and a set of gender roles, and a set of gender identities - the recent RS all refer to one or more of these, with gender identity as the element emerging strongly in the last 20 years. The Man article does a rather poor job from the standpoint of balance in this sense, but "male" has always been something of a residual category in gender studies. Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No, recent RS by and large ignore postmodern theorizing and use the common usage. Gender studies can think whatever, but their perspective is one of many and many scholars ignore them or are critical. Crossroads1 (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You yourself have admitted that the current lede does not reflect "postmodern theorizing". National statistical agencies do not reflect "postmodern theorizing" either. Where do you get this red herring? And the sex/gender distinction is more than 50 years old, and is scarcely "postmodern".

I also fail to understand why you keep dismissing the work of professional demographers, a group that probably has more investment in operationally defining "adult human female" than any other discipline. Smells like IDONTLIKEIT from here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I fail to understand why you are fixated on the work of demographers. The article is 'Woman' not 'Demographics of womanhood.' You seem to be arguing in favor of adding material on the gender/sex distinction to the lead, that is why I am against such philosophical debates in the lead. However, the current lead is problematic because it gives undue discussion to trans and intersex women. Crossroads1 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Statistics Canada and the ABS don't do philosophy, man. That's why I keep citing them - because their interest in the definitional issues is practical, not theoretical. And the "Biology and sex" and "Health" sections of the article are sources to demographic data, so it's not as though it isn't being used here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Article lead

NOTE: RfC now withdrawn per WP:RFCEND and my reasoning below. Crossroads1 (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Two distinct questions here:

Is there a need to discuss gender identity or the gender/sex distinction in the lead of this article?

--and--

Does the current lead spend undue length discussing transgender and intersex women? Crossroads1 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC) NOTE: edited due to concerns below, updated Crossroads1 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

My initial comment on this is that the role of edge cases in this article's lede should be based on recent RS on the topic, not the POV of RfC participants. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

My initial comment: The purpose of the WP:LEAD is to summarize the article. The vast majority of RS discussing women do not bother to define them, thereby implicitly using the dictionary definition of female adult human. Material delving into the meaning of womanhood regarding gender vs. bio. sex may have a place later on but is not appropriate in the lead, giving this controversy undue prominence. A short sentence on trans and intersex women as exceptions to certain biological traits is fine as I suggested above, but there should not be such a high proportion of the lead spent on them. To help with this I suggest expanding the lead to better summarize the article.Crossroads1 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No - per WP:UNDUE, there is no need to include gender identity or the gender/sex distinction in the lede. Furthermore, attempts to do so have resulted in confusing language that tends to make the lede self-contradictory. SunCrow (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Suncrow, the article itself deals with sex and gender at considerable length. How could this be UNDUE for the lede? Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I looked over the rest of the article. Only two sentences are spent discussing how gender/gender identity may be distinct from sex. This does not warrant a discussion in the lead. Crossroads1 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll alert the pages that I alerted at the beginning of this discussion -- the one SunCrow started above -- to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No - To Q1. If the article uses the definition of women as adult human female then gender identity is irrelevant here and should be removed.

Yes - To Q2. There is no detail on the subject in the article itself. This might be the first srticle I have read that makes a reference in the lede that has no follow on in the actual article.

If gender identity is deemed relevant the lede needs major reworking (and I don't agree that the term Woman should be redefined like that) with a detailed section needing to be added to the main body of the article.

I have not used Wikipedia in over 10 years so hope my formatting is ok. 95.150.80.152 (talk)

I'm happy to change my vote to Yes to Q1 as long as the sentence stays something like "There are also trans women (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity),[1]" This removes the contradiction I objected too. If it returns to anything stating along the lines of "Some woman are Transwoman" then I vote No and for it thus to be removed entirely.

User:95.150.80.152 (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Status quo The sex and gender distinction is a significant viewpoint of what a woman is. There should be discussion of it in the lede, the amount it has now is fine.

I like the current amount. It goes over the major contemporary definitions of what a woman is. If anything I would say not talking about it would be non-neutral and a poor summary of the article. There are whole second level headings that cover terminology, biology, and the role gender of gender in defining "womanhood". It's a significant point that is important context for understanding parts of the article, it should be summarized in the lead. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Yes, we should mention trans and intersex women in lead (and the article body). The way the lead currently talks about trans and intersex women is perfectly mainstream. The APA's 2018 Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Girls and Women , a broad, evidence-based document from a respected medical organization, talks about trans women within the opening paragraphs of the introduction. "But trans/intersex women are a small minority!" Sure, and there's nothing unusual about bringing up edge cases when providing a broad overview of something. The vast majority of mammals don't lay eggs, but the lead of the Mammal article still mentions egg laying mammals. Furthermore, the number of trans and intersex people in the world isn't that small. If you're in a room with two hundred people in it, there is probably at least one transgender person there and at least two intersex people (by some estimates there are actually more intersex people in the world than redheads.)
2. No, the lead does not spend undue length discussing transgender and intersex women. It currently just devotes a single sentence to each. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

An examination of these sources reveals that they are in no way comparable. They spend very little material talking about these groups. Should we also talk about lesbian, adolescent, refugee, etc. women in the lead since the APA does? The mammal lead is much longer and spends just a few words on egg laying mammals. If anything these sources prove we do spend too much length on these groups as is. Crossroads1 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Should we also talk about lesbian, adolescent, refugee, etc. women in the lead since the APA does? Well, it's worth considering. But I think talking about trans people in the lead is necessitated by the lead's current focus on the physiological/reproductive aspects of being a woman. Within that context it makes sense to say "most women have these certain physiological features, but there are also trans women who don't". (Perhaps the lead should also mention female infertility, incidentally.) The lead doesn't currently talk about romantic/sexual attraction, or else it would make sense to bring up lesbians, and it doesn't talk about groups of women that are especially vulnerable to violence, or else it might make sense to bring up refugees and adolescents. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Yes, trans and intersex women absolutely belongs to the lead. Recognition of trans and intersex women as women (also, trans and intersex men as men) is present in nearly all mainstream media organizations, healthcare professional organizations, human rights NGOs and academic sources, i.e. basically all reliable sources. Intersex conditions and gender-sex distinction is much relevant to basic definitions of menhood and womenhood, as our scientific understanding today into natural variations in human sex was much shaped by research into those fields. This isn't a debate. This is established science vs. The Flat Earth Society.
2. No The the weight isn't undue. It was structured in that way for clarity. The reason we don't have longer paragraphs in body was probably because we have that detailed in its respective pages, but expanding those paragraphs may also be very necessary. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 06:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I sense a knee jerk reaction here. If you please look at my specific proposal above, I did not seek to remove these groups from the lead nor do I deny they are women. Rather (1) some want to elaborate more on gender vs. sex in the lead and I object to that, (2) I wanted to consolidate them into one sentence because of undue-related concerns, and also maybe (3) lengthen the lead to actually summarize the article more. Crossroads1 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - as this topic is of extremely high risk of external canvassing on fringe channels and forums, comments to this RfC and relevant discussions by apparent SPAs, canvassed accounts and trolls should be procedurally disregarded. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 06:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll note, because it might be easy to miss, that Betty Logan was pinged to this talk page. I'll leave it to others to determine if this was an appropriate notification or not per the guidelines in WP:CANVASS. I'll just say that I can think of several knowledgable and thoughtful editors who would have valuable insights to add to this discussion, but I have always avoided selectively pinging editors in contentious discussions or in RfCs because I don't want to be seen as canvassing. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You with this again, and after your failed "Flyer did wrong" case at the WP:Canvass talk page? Do you just like to stir drama? Or is it that you just like to poke me? I certainly try to avoid you, or mentioning you, or pointing to you; too bad that it can't be vice versa. Either way, you should give it up already. You have even less of a case this time. As others have made clear at the WP:Canvass talk page, you are going to have to provide a solid case for why a person can't ping an interested editor or an editor one thinks might be helpful to a discussion, or even an editor who might agree with one's view on the matter. We are not forbidden from pinging editors who might disagree with others or agree with others. We do not have to look to ping one who might agree and one who might disagree. The point is intent. I pinged Betty Logan exactly for the reasons I stated. Betty Logan and I do not have the same views on formatting the article's lead or content with regard to transgender women and intersex women lower in the article, except for not placing undue weight on them. And I pinged Betty Logan to the "Proposed edits to lede" section, not to this RfC. She very likely would have found this RfC anyway. It didn't take any ping from me for her to get involved in previous discussions about transgender women. But by all means, try to stir up drama...again. Take this matter to the WP:Canvass talk page as well and see what happens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly object to the wording of this RfC the lede does not include a "discussion", these are simple plain English definitions which summarize a critically important part of the article, and are suitable for a lede. The phrasing of this RfC is chosen in such a way as for experienced Wikipedians to give a knee jerk reaction that ledes are not for "discussions". Objections based on the lede being circular because 'transwoman' includes the word 'woman' are bizarre and irrelevant and when a lede is only 97 words long, claiming that "undue length" is an issue is itself bizarre. This RfC should be closed down as a non-neutral question and one created with an agreed wording. --Fæ (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Status quo (ante the recent disputes) is good; the body cites some of the available RS documenting the trans aspect (which is indeed significant enough that it has its own entire article meeting WP:N); the lead should summarize that, and does so with a due amount of weight/length. (I also share the concerns about the non-standard/neutral wording of the RfC, and have therefore responded to the issue at hand, as I notice others above have done, rather than to the specific wordings, which seem to have changed substantially while the RfC was underway.) -sche (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

status quo per WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to be talking about the content of the lead, when the previous weeks of discussion have shown so many holes in the body of the article. The body of the article contains only 11 words specifically about trans women (the lead has 18). Gender expression is not mentioned. Little effort is put into a definition, and the etymology may be too detailed and is sourced to a couple of online dictionary websites. We should write first, and deal with the introduction later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree the body has many lacunae and needs expansion. The "History" section is comically lacking: I would suggest re-titling what is currently there "Earliest named women" or something, but obviously there should be an actual "History" section with more history than just those names! -sche (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that section is startlingly incomplete. I thought about removing it entirely. I'm not actually sure how one would one write a history of women in general, rather than the history of women in particular places. There are some commonalities of women's experiences across cultures in ancient times, but beyond noting that childbirth was dangerous, they're not necessarily specific to women. "Life is hard, and then you die" applied to the men as well. More specific treatments were rooted in specific times and places: Women are considered property here but not there, women can own land here but not there, women can be priests in this religion but not that one, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes we should mention trans and intersex women, No they are not currently mentioned enough, and agree with Fae that this RfC is not worded in a neutral fashion (though my complaint is that these two questions are actually the same question and the entire purpose of the second is to lead the reader to an answer). LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You want the lead to spend more length on trans and intersex women? Also, if anyone would like to explain how the RfC is non neutral, and how they would say it, please do so. There are two questions because one has to do with whether extra material should be added and one with whether the existing material is appropriate. I never intended any unfairness. Crossroads1 (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment

1. No – The subject of the article is female humans. That is what the article is about. It might be clearer with that name but that is an article titling issue. The transgender link should be removed from the lead and relocated to the "see also" section.
2. Yes – As it stands the emphasis on transgender women in the lead is undue. The inclusion of the transgender stuff is what it looks like: an attempt to hijack another article by a group of editors attempting to promote their personal agenda. There is no reason to discuss transgender women in this article, that is what the transgender woman article exists for. The inclusion of intersex women in this article has some legitimacy, which may or may warrant a mention in a properly balanced lead, but other than that the only place transgender women should vbe appearing in this article is the "see also" section.

Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Your argument is based on personal opinion and not encyclopedic conventions. To say "trans women shouldn't be discussed at woman because there's a transgender woman page" is equivalent to the clear nonsense argument "apples shouldn't be mentioned at fruit because there's an apple page" except for one thing: your implicit POV-pushing assumption that trans women aren't women against what the majority of reliable sources say. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  My argument is based on the scope of the topic, which is determined by the sources used by the article. The article discusses biology, reproduction, fertility, health, education, socio economic factors and fashion—all relating to human females. By extending the definition of womanhood to include transgender women in the lead falsely posits that transgender women are also the subject of these sections too when that is factually not the case. Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've replied to this argument here as well. You say that fashion relates to human females but let's be clear: it relates to gender identity, not sex. Lots of intersex people don't find out that they're intersex until reaching adulthood (if not later)—either as it's undiagnosed or the parents keep it hidden—so it's unconvincing that the XX chromosomes are what give you the female experience of the education system, or of fashion. As for the section "Culture and gender roles", this is based on what gender people perceive you as, and many trans women who began transitioning years ago will be perceived as women by a good 100% of the people they encounter. This article is not an article purely about human biology, but also about sociology, gender studies, history and psychology etc. Using an incomplete human biology framework isn't based on the scope of the topic at all. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 08:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Betty is entitled to her opinion, even if most editors disagree with it. Also, women's fashion doesn't necessarily relate to gender identity (see Gender expression). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Well of course, I agree, but opinions aren't immutable and the point of the RfC is for discussion to be had so that consensus can emerge. I don't quite understand your point about gender expression and women's fashion—can you expand upon that? — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Women's fashion is about gender expression, not gender identity. Some people (a) identify as women, and (b) don't wear women's fashions. Other people (a) don't identify as women, and (b) do wear women's fashions. "Dressing like a woman" does not always mean "identifying as a woman". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to emphasize that no one else has advocated for completely removing any mention of trans women from this article. It is an extreme position, considering the reliable sources that state unequivocally that trans women are women. Per WP:Neutral, we are supposed to include all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• The current lead is fine By "current", I'm referring to the lead as of [3], beginning with "A woman is a female human being" and ending with a sentence about trans and intersex women. One common aspect of women is "capable of giving birth", but there are also groups of women who are not capable of giving birth, so it makes sense to mention a couple of those groups. It's the same thing with saying that "women" typically refers to adults, but is also sometimes used to refer to females humans of all ages. I don't see how that's an issue with due weight, it's more about being precise with our definitions. I guess since the lead is so short, anything given a sentence proportionately takes up a lot of the lead. But I think the solution to that is to add to the lead; it's a fairly long article and we could include additional paragraphs summarizing the history, religion, gender role sections etc. However, the current lead works perfectly as an introductory paragraph. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Solution is to expand the lede to include more stuff that has due wight there but currently isn't there. While the lede is short, and the sentence on trans and intersex women takes up much of the space here, it is not undue, the real issue is that there is a lot more stuff that has due weight for the lede that should be added to the lede as well; the solution is to expand the lede, not pull the trans and intersex sentences out, which are useful for clarity regardless of political leanings. Mentioning trans women is fine, so long as it is only a single sentence. However, I do highly prefer the original "Trans Women are those whose sex assignment..." rather than "Women may also be transgender..." The former is defining a subclass of women for clarity, and is difficult to misinterpret, the later seems likely to inflame tensions by using wording "women can also be transgender" (which some people refute) rather than the term 'trans women' (which regardless of your political leanings has a clear and well understood meaning). I feel like the former is more clear, less controversial, and feels less out of place. Part of my reasoning here is also that defining trans women is useful in the lede, being a major topic in current culture, but saying that "some women are X" seems out of place as there are a lot of attributes that could fit X and it sounds like a superfluous detail being added, even if the topic is itself useful to discuss in the lede. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 06:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• No on the first. I agree with User:Betty Logan's observation. This article is about female humans. A female is born with XX chromosomes. An intersex female is born with chromosomal sex that is not consistent with her external genitalia (and in reality is not a common occurrence). A transwoman is born with XY chromosomes and a male external genitalia ... then chooses to transition from male-to-woman. This transition follows male birth-infancy-puberty-adolescence-early adulthood; and often takes place at middle age or after. You can include a brief section in the article's body explaining male-to-woman transgenders, but it does not belong in the lead. Any article that is allowed to bend over backwards in order to appease gender activism becomes garbage.
• Yes on the second. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC) 23:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC) (forgot to include rsp on second.)
  • Dictionaries and reliable sources do not define woman as "a person born with XX chromosomes" and that definition excludes intersex women anyway. Reliable sources discuss womanhood as a variety of things; in addition to biological, the term can also describe something social or psychological. And one small point: as Wiktionary notes, using "transgender" as a noun is designed to cause offense. The non-loaded term is "transgender people". — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

If a woman is defined as a female human being, then the XX chromosomes that determine female sex is the definition. There are more scientific and medical publications in existence that define XX = female; than dictionaries, user-generated Wiktionaries, and hand-picked reliable sources about the interpretation of "woman". Pyxis Solitary yak 23:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's see what that source says about Swyer syndrome: In Swyer syndrome, individuals with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell, the pattern typically found in boys and men, have female reproductive structures. [...] Women with this disorder [...] and Girls and women typically have two X chromosomes (46,XX karyotype), while boys and men usually have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. But even if I accepted your statement as true, let's think about the scope of the article again—it has sections on education, women in politics, culture and gender roles etc. This isn't an article just about cell biology, and the definitions used in sociology, in gender studies, or even in history and psychology, also need to be taken into account, as much of the content is about these different academic fields. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 08:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This is what I also read: Swyer syndrome is a mutation that occurs in approximately 1 in 80,000 people...SRY gene mutations that cause Swyer syndrome prevent production of the sex-determining region Y protein or result in the production of a nonfunctioning protein. A fetus whose cells do not produce functional sex-determining region Y protein will not develop testes but will develop a uterus and fallopian tubes, despite having a typically male karyotype...The mutations in this gene that cause Swyer syndrome decrease signaling that leads to male sexual differentiation and enhance signaling that leads to female sexual differentiation, preventing the development of testes and allowing the development of a uterus and fallopian tubes....Nongenetic factors, such as hormonal medications taken by the mother during pregnancy, have also been associated with this condition. However, in most individuals with Swyer syndrome, the cause is unknown. None of this changes science about the chromosomes that determine the female and male sex. There are several genetic disorders (Achondroplasia, Cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, Hemophilia, etc.). What is the point of Swyer syndrome? That it's an "aha!" genetic defect which can be interpreted as resulting in transgender women? I hope not. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I said nothing relating to trans women. I'm saying that it exemplifies that "XX chromosomes" is not a satisfactory definition of the word "female". People with Swyer syndrome are classified as female / women because of their female primary sex characteristics. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"I said nothing relating to trans women." Nor did I say you did. But Swyer syndrome can be tooled as providing implications. You may not be satisfied with XX chromosomes defining female sex, but I leave the satisfaction to science. The sex of juvenile skeletons cannot be determined with morphological methods; because of this, DNA provides the answer. When anthropologists discover ancient human bones and morphological sexing is not possible, genetic material and chromosomal DNA diagnosis of X and Y chromosomes is used to determine biological sex. This fact is not changed by personal viewpoints and current gender activism. And it's clear that discussions on Wikipedia about sex and gender become bottomless sinkholes. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes to the first question and no to the second; that is, status quo for the first paragraph (this one which mentions intersex and trans people) and then expand the lead. The layout of this RfC is confusing and people have responded with different wording but by my count we're currently 9-5 in favour of those four things (just an indication of consensus, as RfCs are not votes). Anyway, that's just the preamble, and here's my justification: the majority of reliable sources (including the dictionaries that people have tried to use as evidence) classify both intersex and transgender women as women, which is why our first sentence on trans woman defines the term as a woman who was assigned male at birth. The pertinent question is not "is a trans woman part of the definition of woman" because we are not a dictionary and the lead is meant to address key aspects of a topic rather than just defining it. One key aspect of womanhood is the ability to give birth, but then we should address the other key aspects, that women who can't give birth may fall into. To properly explain what womanhood is, we need to discuss some edge cases, so to speak, so this content would be a glaring omission if it was removed.
  Many of the comments in opposition to the status quo are based on assertions (e.g. "The subject of the article is female humans. That is what the article is about.") rather than arguments, particularly assertions founded on an unspoken assertion that trans women aren't women (which is not what reliable sources say). The only reasonable argument I can see is due weight, which is precisely why the lead should be expanded. As I said two weeks ago, here, I'd suggest a paragraph on typical biology and anatomy, a paragraph on gender roles and social behaviour and patriarchy, and a paragraph on women's history as the main aspects of the topic. I strongly agree with the comments of WanderingWanda, Tsu*miki* and Red Rock Canyon and per Insertcleverphrasehere I'm happy to compromise on "Trans women are those whose sex assignment..." rather than my proposed "women may also be transgender..." And finally, I believe I'm also in agreement with the person who started this RfC, Crossroads1, though their position isn't crystal clear to me. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes to the first question; they should be mentioned. And a hard no to the second. There's barely a lead here. It's a one-sentence intro, two sentences clarifying terminology, a sentence about giving birth, and a sentence about trans and intersex women. A lead should summarize the content of the article, and for an article this long should be 3-4 paragraphs per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Let's focus our efforts on writing a lead, rather than arguing about dismantling what little has been done.--Trystan (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I question the neutrality of the second sentence of this RfC and suggest that it be removed. (WP:RFC Statement should be neutral) – WanderingWanda (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reworded it, but it is a distinct issue and needs to be addressed. Crossroads1 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear what the options are here - especially, there are two questions asked. If I say no, am I saying no to the first question or the second question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

There are two distinct questions that need resolution. Crossroads1 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

When in doubt about what words mean -including "woman"- it's worth checking the definitions provided by major dictionaries of the English language. Here are the Merriam-webster's definitions for the word. Ideologues, writers, activists and other categories -in academia, various branches of various governments, and so on- might try to hijack and redefine concepts from time to time, but I'm not sure if the leads of wikipedian articles should embrace such redefinitions and give them undue weight before they become more widely established -at which point most lexicographers would have already made the necessary amendments. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• No-one is disagreeing with that as a definition i.e. the first sentence. But the lead (of a Wikipedia article in general) needs to do more than just defining the titular term (WP:NOTDICT). While we're looking at Merriam-Webster, take a look at their definition of trans woman: a woman who was identified as male at birth. Hence your source gives a clear argument of why trans women do fall under the scope of woman. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Lexigographers are not reliable sources, and should be treated as inferior to academia. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Will it be necessary to specifically look up some of the countless medical, psychological, etc. peer reviewed papers that discuss women and simply use the dictionary meaning? Or will pointing out they exist be enough? Also, MOS:LEADREL states, "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article." Very little material on women delves into gender vs. sex; the vast majority ignores it. Crossroads1 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A few points:

—Lexigographers update definitions once the new meanings have become widely common -i.e: once they are dominant, in culture. They are great filters against most "concept creeps",against popularizing fringe definitions -even when they come from various academic corners- and so on.

—Not all academic sources and disciplines are as reliable especially when discussing current controversies and subjects being debated -in fact, outside of the hard sciences and very few other disciplines, most papers coming out of academia are junk, often on par with punditry. The so called social-sciences -for example- are one of the fields most hit by the Replicability Crisis.

—I agree with citing "current scholarly consensus when available". On this subject -however- consensus does not seem to be available -which explains the long, at times heated debates on this talk page.

—What would be the reasoning for accepting changes to established definitions just because some ideologues, philosophers, academics, activists or writers propose them? Those definitions might be representative in a few niche academic fields, often in a few countries only, but terms like "woman" have existed long before them.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Where the best-reputed statistical agencies in the world use certain terms with certain definitions, like the Australian and Canadian statistical agencies with male and female gender, I think the issue has moved beyond "philosophers" or "activists". Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You have cited two examples only. A minority of English speaking countries. 95.150.80.152 (talk) 23:17 11 July 2019

The US and the UK are not as far along, but are clearly headed in the same direction. There is nothing FRINGE about the sex/gender distinction, or the recognition of gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact the article opens with a sex based defintiion and does not include any gender identity details that support the remarks in the lede. Yes the concept of Gender identity is gaining ground but sex is sex. Despite that I'm open to expanding the concept of Woman (and Man) to ALSO be a gender identity but the article makes no reference to it beyond a remark in the lede and until it does that remark should be removed. 95.150.80.152 (talk) 01:31 12 July 2019

There is an extensive discussion of gender in the article that needs to be supported in the lede; it is not all sex-based. But yes, gender identity definitions (like those from national statistical agencies, who are paradigmatic RS) should also be incorporated. Newimpartial (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial, let me ask you this, as looking over this again it is not totally clear. Do you seek to add more material on gender vs. sex to the lead, or do you think its current mention of transwomen is enough (again, for the lead)? Crossroads1 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I my position has always been that the amount of gender identity content in the lede is appropriate, but more reliably-sourced material should be added to the article. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Dimadick, dictionaries are reliable sources under Wikipedia's rules. Scholarly sources are often better, but that doesn't mean that non-scholarly sources are actually un-reliable. To name only one example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary is cited in about a thousand articles right now, and that's not the most popular dictionary in use.

I'd love your help in finding some good scholarly sources. I cited a couple above, from philosophers (but not, as it happens, a single post-modern one in the lot), but we need more from other fields. The definition depends upon the context, so representing multiple contexts will be important. For example, a realistic definition of pregnant woman might include anyone who's pregnant, regardless of age, gender identity, gender expression, etc., but a reasonable definition of woman for the purposes of preventing street harassment of women might include most drag queens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitions should be restricted to the lead and the Terminology section. Unsure if you are suggesting otherwise, but just making my position clear. Crossroads1 (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit by SunCrow, which uses the rather deceptive edit summary of "rephrase" - their edit is in no way a simple or neutral rephrasing, rather it fundamentally changes the meaning of the lede without any apparent consensus here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In hindsight, I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that my edit summary was inaccurate. However, I stand by my edit. SunCrow (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Despite 11 days of very lengthy talk page discussion since my post above dated July 1, and despite the good faith efforts of other editors, it does not appear that we are any closer to reaching consensus on the lede. For the reasons I have set forth earlier on this talk page, I have tagged the article for undue weight and for being self-contradictory. SunCrow (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there are undue-weight issues, but only in the lead as of right now. However where does the article contradict itself? I think RS indicate that intersex and trans women fall under "female" due to generally having at least some female secondary sex characteristics and a female gender identity. I think you and I agree that we do not want to risk resolving the "contradiction" in favor of no longer describing women as female, as someone suggested way above. Crossroads1 (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"Female" is always part of this debate, but it usually happens at Talk:Trans woman. The most recent example there is Galestar. When people speak of "female" in this case, they are talking about how it's defined in dictionaries, encyclopedias, biology and anatomy books. It's not usually defined in those texts as a person with female secondary sex characteristics or just as a person with female secondary sex characteristics, and not all trans women have them. Some don't seek out sex reassignment therapy, either due to not having the money for it or due to personal choice. I haven't seen editors disputing that intersex women are female. But, anyway, editors keep debating "woman" in relation to gender identity and "female." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

My mistake on Galestar. Galestar was simply pointing out that a previous RfC closed as "no consensus." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

+1. (Tangential) Anytime someone is pointedly using "female" rather than "woman", I start to wonder if they have stopped talking about female humans and are now talking about female cats, or maybe they are just being pointy. --Fæ (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the tagging as it implies there's something wrong with the status quo, which is precisely what the RfC is intended to decide upon. If the status quo is deemed acceptable, the tags are incorrect. If the lead needs to be changed, then the solution is to change the lead and not to tag-bomb it. The discussion here hasn't garnered consensus that the lead is self-contradictory, so it's misleading to place that tag in particular. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

— Bilorv (he/him) _(talk), you have not demonstrated a sufficient reason to remove the tags (please see WP:WNTRMT for reference). I don't believe that consensus was needed to insert them. Also, adding two tags to a page and explaining those tags on the talk page is not WP:TAGBOMBING. In the event that anyone believes I have not adequately explained the reasoning behind the tags, I will reiterate and amplify: The article is self-contradictory because it defines "woman" as a female human being and then adds "trans women" (who are, by definition, not female) to the definition. The lede places undue weight on transgender issues vis-a-vis the percentage of persons who identify as transgender (which in the United States, according to LGBT_demographics of the United States, is estimated at 0.6%). I have reinserted the tags. SunCrow (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow, did you actually read Bilorv and other editors' explanations above? There is practically nothing self contradictory about trans women being women. Our modern scientific understanding of femalehood and womenhood is fundamentally defined by scientific research into transgender and intersex individuals, which has demonstrated that chromosomes alone does not determine sex and trans women/men, even before transition, are endocrinologically, neurologically and psychologically female/male to varying degrees similar to intersex women. Most healthcare professional organizations, especially gynecology professional organizations, recognize trans women as women and their healthcare need as essential necessity. Your personal fringe opinion against cited reliable sources does not matter here, and you should never, ever use tags as badge of shame to undermine sourced content you don't agree with. And your original research weighing scientific importance on the basis of population is painfully inaccurate. You must stop this disruptive editing, else you're walking yourself into a dangerous path. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 13:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉, first of all, I attempted to engage you on your talk page about the edit summary you used in your first revert of the tags I added. I have now discovered that you displayed a high level of maturity (sarcasm) by simply removing what I said rather than responding like an adult. I will repeat my comment: "Your misleading and accusatory edit summary was unnecessary and not appreciated. If you have questions about the reasons I added the tags, you are free to those questions on the talk page; there is ongoing discussion there. I would remind you of WP:WNTRMT and WP:AGF." Your argument above on the issue that we're supposed to be talking about is so absurd that it's not even worth answering. As to your barrage of accusations: I did not contradict cited, reliable sources. I have not expressed a personal fringe opinion. Your contention that the figure I cited above is "painfully inaccurate" is baseless. But none of this is surprising; my prior experience with you has taught me that you are willing to use falsehoods if you think they will give you the upper hand. As to your point about what I must do: I do not take orders from you. Remember that. SunCrow (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Keeping the sex and gender distinction in mind, our understanding of femalehood or womanhood is not about science...unless one is talking about social science. The "scientific research into transgender and intersex individuals, which has demonstrated that chromosomes alone does not determine sex and trans women/men, even before transition, are endocrinologically, neurologically and psychologically female/male to varying degrees similar to intersex women" commentary is inaccurate. Editors here can read this 2016 "A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism" source. And, per WP:MEDRS, review articles are the type of sources Wikipedia prefers if we are going to get into talk of brain differences. There is no scientific consensus on the causes of transsexuality. And brain studies on this topic are flawed, since some of these same brain scans also show that cisgender lesbian women have brains more similar in shape to cisgender heterosexual men and cisgender gay men have brains more similar in shape to cisgender heterosexual women. But we don't say that this means that the gay men should be women and that lesbian women should be men. Those brain scans relate to the topic of transgender people as well because some researchers wonder if what we are seeing in the brains of trans women who have brains similar to cisgender women is a gay male brain. While the brains of some androphilic/early-onset transgender women are similar to the brains of cisgender women, it has not been shown to be the case for gynephilic trans women in terms of brain structure. Like the 2016 review notes, androphilic and non-androphilic trans women have different brain phenotypes, and non-androphilic trans women differ from both cisgender male and female controls in non-dimorphic brain areas. And yet we get people stating that trans women have brains similar to cisgender women in a way that makes it seem as though this applies to both types of trans women, or that it applies to all trans women. And, indeed, some transgender activists or allies, as is clear by this 2018 The Daily Beast source, stress not looking for brain causes in transgender people. They see it as harmful. Because, for example, what about the transgender men and women whose brains scans come back as not indicating that they have brains similar to their identified sex/gender? Does this then invalidate their gender identity? No. And also important is the fact that the brains of transgender women are different controls-wise, but they possess their own distinct characteristics. Although, in some studied, their brains are similar to the typical average female brain, their brains largely match their natal sex. And, in this 2015 "Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic" meta-analysis, Joel et al. report, "Brains with features that are consistently at one end of the 'maleness-femaleness' continuum are rare. Rather, most brains are comprised of unique 'mosaics' of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males." Their research has received some criticism, though. There has also been less research done on the brains of trans men than on the brains of trans women.

As for the tags, SunCrow was adding them in good-faith since there have been people who have disputed either the way that the transgender text is presented or whether it should be in the lead. And this dispute is definitely more about the transgender text than it is about the intersex text. But the edit warring over it -- on both sides -- should stop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer22 Reborn. In response to your comment, and as a show of good faith, I will not re-insert the tags that I added at this time. SunCrow (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Good faith or not on the part of SunCrow is not what I was disputing with regards to removing the tags, but I will dispute it now. It's been repeatedly explained that the lead paragraph is more than a definition—as any lead paragraph on this non-dictionary website should be—and the trans&intersex sentence is not a definition, but relevant information to the subject matter. This refusal to hear the point in combination with edit warring is not acceptable behaviour from someone who wishes to be taken seriously. To be taken seriously, one should listen to other editors and engage in discussion rather than repeatedly trying to exert their will directly on the article page. In particular, SunCrow appears not to have read the following sentences I wrote: If the status quo is deemed acceptable, the tags are incorrect. If the lead needs to be changed, then the solution is to change the lead and not to tag-bomb it. Their repeated assertion that the lead violates UNDUE is personal opinion and nothing more. The result of the RfC will tell us whether there's consensus that the lead violates UNDUE, as the second question clearly asks: Does the current lead spend undue length discussing transgender and intersex women? Until then the tag is an attempt at supervoting. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv, I could very easily make a similar claim that you and many other editors on this page are not hearing the point that I raised here on July 1. My point was simple: If a trans woman is a woman, then "female human" is an inaccurate definition of "woman". If a woman is a female human, then a trans woman is not a woman (unless, I suppose, there is an exception to that definition). This is not rocket science. So who, exactly, is not hearing whom? SunCrow (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

No-one has filed an RfC about that and your false equivalence is besides the point that you were edit warring to re-add the tags. I did take your comment into consideration when writing my first response on this page, There's no simple definition of "woman" that isn't circular, is unambiguous and has any common sense validity to it. Before we could even start looking at whether gender is performative, biological or psychological, we would have to question whether a definition should be descriptive or prescriptive. But I guess that comment is a pretty oblique response to what you said so I'll make my point more explicit: your point relies on a mystery definition of "female" that you've declined to provide. We could sensibly define "female" as (of a human) a girl or a woman. Most reliable sources classify trans women as women so that's it, no original research about contradictions change anything, and getting bogged down in definitions doesn't help. Instead we should be discussing general properties that apply to most women (e.g. capability of childbirth; performative aspect; secondary sex characteristics; oppression under patriarchy etc.) and noting where they do not apply when significant. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 19:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv, I disagree completely with your assertion that there is "no simple definition of 'woman' that isn't circular, is unambiguous and has any common sense validity to it". Here's one: "A woman is an adult female human being. A female human being is a human being that does not possess a Y chromosome; typically, a female human being possesses two X chromosomes. A woman's body includes a uterus, ovaries, and a vagina; in adolescence, women also grow breasts. During the years between puberty (physical maturation) and menopause (the cessation of a woman's fertility), women are capable of producing eggs, becoming pregnant, giving birth, and lactating. Women's anatomy and reproductive capacity may differ from the norm for reasons such as genetics, medical problems, and surgical interventions". SunCrow (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, but you can't cover all the cases by saying "except for exceptions"—that's circular (or ambiguous or ill-defined, whichever you prefer to view it as). When you say Women's anatomy and reproductive capacity may differ from [the previous sentences], your paragraph ceases to be a rigorous definition and starts being a heuristic description—which is the closest we're ever going to get. Particularly when you say medical problems, this has no unambiguous scientific meaning because a "problem" is a socially constructed idea, based on what society deems undesirable for a specific purpose. Again you're excluding women with Swyer syndrome with the arbitrary absolutism about the Y chromosome (which you've singled out from all the other critiera you list), and to correct this we need to add a modifier, a female human being generally does not possess a Y chromosome (except for "reasons such as genetics, medical problems, and surgical interventions"), which has a side-effect of no longer excluding trans women from the definition. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 19:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv, I see your point. I should probably have stopped after the word "chromosomes". SunCrow (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Then your definition fails the "common sense validity to it" criterion. Most people don't know what their chromosomes are. I certainly don't. Of course I'd guess XY but there's no guarantee. And yet to describe me as anything other than "male" would be a description that doesn't make any sense in the real world, such as when people work out which pronouns to use for me (not once has anyone used anything other than "he"/"him" for me), or when we talk about gender roles (which are socially constructed, not biological traits) and the resultant effects of them (as this article does at length). — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 06:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow deserves full credit for a definition that isn't circular. ("Except for exceptions" isn't circular. If the exceptions are unstated, the definition is incomplete. If the exceptions are stated, there's nothing wrong with the definition.)

Your "common sense" idea seems to mean "lines up with social expectations" (e.g., the pronouns that other people guess for you). This is not an unusual approach in formal definitions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

But SunCrow's definition doesn't state the exceptions—they give some hazy sufficient conditions ("reasons such as genetics, medical problems, and surgical interventions") but no necessary ones. I'm looking for something that relates to how the natural language word is used in practice. If a word is used by humans based on their sensory perception (which this one is—humans most commonly use gendered terms based on their perception of a person's appearance) then the word's definition should be based on criteria which can be verified with sensory perception, of which chromosomes are not one. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 01:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow, never expected myself to be a truscum for once. While trans brains are something I need to read more in depth about, the rest of my points above still holds - modern human sex distinction takes into account of far more factors than chromosomes alone, and that almost all medical professional organizations recognize trans women's womenhood. Wikipedia is not meant to respect editors advancing fringe ideas, and AGF can only extend for about a mile. Egregious cases of IDHT and attempts to influence discussion outcomes are almost inexcusable. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 16:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the assumption of good faith can only extend so far, Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉. SunCrow (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Your points about the research need work, but, yes, chromosomes alone are not the only thing researchers look at when it comes to sex differentiation. This is clear just by researchers examining the brains of transgender people to look into causes as to why they identify differently than their assigned sex. And while the sex and gender distinction isn't taking "sex" to include brain anatomy, sex assignment (unless considering prenatal sex discernment) has always been about the genitals of a child. And we all know that if "sex" is taken to mean "gender identity," that certainly does not just concern one's body. I concede that SunCrow has not acted in the best way. Since more than one editor has reverted him on the addition of the tags, he should stop now. Looking at other opinions above, the "undue weight" concern is not just about whether or not editors view trans women as women. It's also about whether or not the text is too much for the small lead. We can see that people have suggested expanding the lead and some content about gender identity lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: SunCrow's statement If a trans woman is a woman, then "female human" is an inaccurate definition of "woman". If a woman is a female human, then a trans woman is not a woman (unless, I suppose, there is an exception to that definition).

My sense is that Sun Crow does not allow for "female human" to refer to female gender identity, which is a sense in multiple, authoritative reliable sources (for which my go-to remains this Statistics Canada source, because of its clarity and the reputation of the organization publishing it. So SunCrow, I'm afraid you may have to re-think your syllogism... Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Good grief. SunCrow (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's Wikipedia's definition of "female": "Female (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells). Barring rare medical conditions, most female mammals, including female humans, have two X chromosomes". SunCrow (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This is as good a place as any to point out that inserting a long biological definition into the lede, as the now-current version of Woman does, privileges sex over gender in a way the current RS do not and will seem quite laughable in another 10 years. Yes, CRYSTAL, but that doesn't apply to Talk pages and anyway it is quite clear which way the wind is blowing in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

RS exist outside of gender studies, you know. While we are predicting the future, what I think is clear is that the "everything is just an arbitrary social construct" mentality is the one that gets more laughable every year. Research into how biology and culture interact has never been stronger. Crossroads1 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You may or may not be surprised, Crossroads1, to learn that I completely agree with you about that. And there is a line between "is a social construct" and "is an arbitrary social construct" that might seem nitpicky but that some of us find absolutely crucial. And from within (shudder) gender studies, something like Judith Butler's performativity theory, read correctly, absolutely does not deny a mutually constitutive relationship between biology and culture - it positively insists on one (while denying that the two can ever be separated entirely). Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the distinction is absolutely crucial. You state that if Butler is "read correctly" she does not deny such and such, but the opaque style of postmodern philosophy is a huge part of the problem because it can be difficult to interpret. I do want to emphasize that I do not agree with hyperbolic commentators (off Wikipedia) who claim that gender studies has no value. However, as our articles here make clear, gender studies' approach relies heavily on psychoanalysis and postmodernism, which are not scientific and subject to a great deal of criticism by reputable scientists and scholars, which criticism I do agree with. This is on top of the fact that in general, academic silos are a bad thing. This is why I continually emphasize the importance of other academic fields that study sex/gender, not just gender studies. Crossroads1 (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes. "Privileging sex over gender" is so backwards. So parochial. So yesterday. So "on the wrong side of history". SunCrow (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not advocating a reversal of this, i.e., privileging gender over sex. I just want to follow the BALANCE as set out in recent RS. Which this edit of yours, for example, certainly does not. It does a good job of scent tagging your POV, however. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Give me a break. SunCrow (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The current lead is not "privileging sex over gender." It has one paragraph dedicated to the definition/concept, one paragraph dedicated to biology, one paragraph dedicated to gender and other social aspects, and one paragraph dedicated to trans and intersex women. It is balanced with regard to WP:Due weight and what recent reliable sources state. That it doesn't focus on gender identity in the way you focus on it with your selective sources matters not. More on gender identity could be added to that final paragraph. I think you need to keep WP:Recentism in mind. Our WP:Due weight policy is not about what very recent reliable sources state anyway. Editors did a fine job crafting this current lead. And I'm glad to have SlimVirgin with us now. Goodness knows she's great with women's topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you were interpreting my previous comment, Flyer 22 Reborn, but I was not finding fault with the current lede; I was casting shade on SunCrow's quotation from "Female" and one of their previous reworkings of the lede (for which I provided the diff above).

I fully support the structure and balance of the current lede; my only quibble would be that I would like to see a sentence in the first paragraph that would frame the lede as a whole. But that is just a thought, not a criticism. Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You stated, "This is as good a place as any to point out that inserting a long biological definition into the lede, as the now-current version of Woman does, privileges sex over gender." You also stated, "I am not advocating a reversal of this, i.e., privileging gender over sex. I just want to follow the BALANCE as set out in recent RS." This edit by SunCrow is from days ago, before lead was developed into what it currently is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You are right that my comment above was misleading. I apologize. I was trying to react in one place to both the Female quotation and this diff, which I mistakenly took to be the then-current lede. By this intervention, to which you replied, I was clear on the content, but I should have made a public correction and been clear that I was responding to SunCrow's proposals, not the actual lede that has been developing reCently. Again, sorry to be confusing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where to place this comment, but the lede should retain the sentence about trans and intersex woman. It provides clarification as to what the scope of the article is presenting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment The sections (and the sources they are attributed to) concerning history, biology, health, reproductive rights, gender roles, violence against women, fashion, fertility, education, employment, politics and science, literature & art are all specifically discussing the human female. Females account for about 99% of the scope of the article, so in fact the sentence in the lead does not help clarify the scope of the article; in fact it does the opposite. Extending the definition of women to encompass transgender women in the lead of the article implies that biological women and transgender women share a common history of shared experiences, but that is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and the sources used in the article. It creates the implication that the content, findings and conclusions contained within these sections also applies to transgender women, but regardless of the extent to how much that is true it is not substantiated by the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Betty Logan. SunCrow (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

In fact, the discussion of history, gender roles, violence against women, fashion, etc., etc.. relies primarily on RS that use concepts of gender rather than those of anatomical or assigned sex. While of course the feast majority of those gendered female are also AFAB, the implication that these extensive literatures define their subjects on the basis of anatomy rather than socially-defined gender is simply false and relies on am antiquated POV. This distortion has nothing to do with whether trans women share the historical experience of cis women - it is about whether the historical subject of women is defined by anatomy or by social role; I believe the literatures cited are actually quite clear on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The concept of gender that is applied almost exclusively by both the content of this article and its sources is a tautological one with that of a biological woman. The generalizations that form the basis of this article are not possible to make about transgender women because transgender people by definition will have had male and female experiences depending on the extent of their transition and when it occurred. For example, a transgender woman may have had a male experience of education and female experience of the workplace, so it is not possible for the "Education" section of the article to draw any meaningful conclusions about the educational experiences of transgender women. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

For example, a transgender woman may have had a male experience of education and female experience of the workplace. True but irrelevant. The Religion section is irrelevant to women who were brought up in irreligious households and the Reproductive rights and freedom section is irrelevant to women who are infertile or even those who are post-menopause. And in fact let's look at what the Education section does say: it talks about lower literacy rates, university enrolment and STEM gaps. Well none of these things are applicable to a girl from a wealthy family who goes to performing arts school. As I've been saying, the article is not supposed to describe things that apply to every woman—because such things don't exist—instead, it talks about the overall picture (e.g. the stats in Education) or things which will generally affect the majority of women (Reproductive rights; Religion). — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 07:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, we do not simply have "biological women" and people who transition later. The female gender also includes intersex women and "biological males" raises as women - my point is not that the numbers of there are significant, but that the focus of most sections of the article is in gender rather than sex, just as your "if not nude, then feminine" argument about the first image stops being about anatomical sex the moment a purely anatomical nude is off the table. Newimpartial (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

In the #Continued discussion section, I've already addressed that the "Health," "Reproductive rights and freedom," "Culture and gender roles," "Violence against women," "Fertility and family life," "Religion," and "Education" sections concern sex/biology. I've addressed that women and girls significantly or primarily face discrimination and violence on the basis of their sex; various reliable sources (including some I listed in the aforementioned section) support that fact. And, of course, "Health" concerns sex. "Reproductive rights and freedom" concerns sex. "Violence against women" concerns sex; the World Health Organization (WHO) is clear about that. "Fertility" concerns sex. I view all of the sections I just mentioned as an "of course, they concern sex" matter, but the "Health," "Reproductive rights and freedom," "Violence against women" and "Fertility" sections are a very obvious "concerns sex" matter. This doesn't mean that gendered beliefs, including gender roles, are not also a factor for some of the sections. Obviously, "Culture and gender roles" concerns gender as well. Same goes for "Education," "Women in politics" and "Science, literature and art." As for clothing, there are girls and women who are oppressed with regard to what they can and can't wear, and this is due to the fact that they are female. If they had a penis at birth, it wouldn't be happening; yes, in this case, I'm using "female" to refer to the girl's body, like many sources do. In that "Continued discussion" section, I've also been over the fact that cisgender women and transgender women have very different experiences, which a number of reliable sources are clear about. Editors can believe what they want to believe, but the sources speak for themselves. And I have access to a wealth of academic sources. If an editor wants to interpret "sex" or "female" as referring to gender, they are free to do so, but we will not extend that interpretation to the article unless the source is clear that it's using the terms that way or "sex" and "gender" interchangeably. And, Newimpartial, I'm not getting into this debate with you again. Betty Logan, of course the article is not going to cover transgender women just as much as it covers cisgender women (and it shouldn't, per WP:DUE), but covering trans women somewhat, including in the lead, is not saying that cisgender women and trans women are largely the same and don't have different issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

And as I have pointed out above, many sources on those topics, including those you yourself have cited, refer to gender as well as or in addition to sex. There simply is no interpretive rule in English that specified that gender "actually means" sex unless a source specifies that it does not - which is the only way I can make sense of the hermeneutic you used for the sources you cited, as they typically referred to gender as well as sex. In this sense, yes, please let the sources speak for themselves. I had no desire to "debate this" even once. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You did not state "gender as well as or in addition to sex" before. I, however, did for a few of the sources. Nowhere did I state that "gender" equates to "sex" in these cases. In fact, I stated just the opposite, including in my "13:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)" post in this very section. What else did I state in the "Continued discussion" section? Oh, that's right -- that the sources I listed mainly focus on "sex," "female," "biology" and "bodies" with regard to the discrimination and violence women face. The bolded parts are right there for everyone to see. They can also read the rest of the sources if they have access. The WHO means what it means, and very much addresses sex/the bodies of women, and it does that in different publications. And if sources mean "gender" to refer to gender roles or gender identity, they would state that. You don't get to interpret sources to your liking. Sources are very clear that gender roles are based on sex, and yet you continue to dispute that even after I cited two sources making that very clear. You went into some personal interpretation. You keep trying to separate sex from gender roles in a way that makes no sense, and you are wrong for reasons Crossroads1 and I have already been over. You keep taking about "gender" in some vague way, as if it doesn't usually refer to physical sex. And if one doesn't mean physical sex when referring "gender," what are they talking about? Oh, that's right -- gender roles or gender identity. And don't even bring up gender expression again, when it's not cited in the literature nearly as much and is so intertwined with gender identity. Because of the different meanings of "gender," you keep using that term to obscure what is being talking about in the sources...as if the sources are taking about gender roles or gender identity when they are not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding "primarily" when the sources do not state "primarily" is not letting the sources speak for themselves. I am perfectly content with the WHO definition of gender, Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men - when it is not necessarily to make additional specifications such as "gender identity". I am only "separating" gender from assigned sex in the way the reliable sources do - by distinguishing them from one another. I am not divorcing them or placing them somehow in conflict. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources I listed, and many other sources, are focused on women facing discrimination and/or violence women due to "sex," "female," "biology" and "bodies." One cannot take that to then mean gender roles or gender identity. That is my point. A few of them address gender roles, but even a number of those later on make it clear that these gender roles are assigned to people on the basis of their sex. I am not seeing as many sources stating that women face discrimination and violence based on their gender identity, unless the sources are talking about transgender women. That is another point of mine. And I see far more sources stating that women face discrimination and violence due to "sex," "female," "biology" and "bodies" than due to gender roles. Unless you have sources to prove me wrong, I don't see what's left to discuss. But then again, just listing sources that talk about women facing discrimination and/or violence based on gender roles or gender stereotypes is not enough; of course, those sources exist. It doesn't negate the fact that women facing discrimination and/or violence women due to "sex," "female," "biology" and "bodies" is talked about more, and that gender roles are based on sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

One more time: you can't simply assume that by "gender" sources mean "sex", "biology" or "bodies" unless they specify otherwise. Nor does "gender" have to mean either sex assignment or gender roles or gender identity, as if these three options were exhaustive and/or mutually exclusive. Gender consists of "socially-constructed characteristics", and it is not the business of editors to impose some specific understanding of those characteristics - such as that they are "based on sex", beyond what the RS actually state for themselves. As to what is "talked about more" in the recent RS, that should be an empirical question rather than an ideological one. Newimpartial (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

One more time: "Nowhere did I state that 'gender' equates to 'sex' in these cases. In fact, I stated just the opposite, including in my "13:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)' post in this very section. What else did I state in the 'Continued discussion' section? Oh, that's right -- that the sources I listed mainly focus on 'sex,' 'female,' 'biology' and 'bodies' with regard to the discrimination and violence women face. The bolded parts are right there for everyone to see. They can also read the rest of the sources if they have access. The WHO means what it means, and very much addresses sex/the bodies of women, and it does that in different publications. And if sources mean 'gender' to refer to gender roles or gender identity, they would state that. You don't get to interpret sources to your liking. Sources are very clear that gender roles are based on sex, and yet you continue to dispute that even after I cited two sources making that very clear. You went into some personal interpretation. You keep trying to separate sex from gender roles in a way that makes no sense, and you are wrong for reasons Crossroads1 and I have already been over. You keep taking about "gender" in some vague way, as if it doesn't usually refer to physical sex. And if one doesn't mean physical sex when referring 'gender,' what are they talking about? Oh, that's right -- gender roles or gender identity. And don't even bring up gender expression again, when it's not cited in the literature nearly as much and is so intertwined with gender identity. Because of the different meanings of 'gender,' you keep using that term to obscure what is being talking about in the sources...as if the sources are taking about gender roles or gender identity when they are not."

Do move on. Acting like I'm assuming that "gender" means "sex," "biology," or "bodies," when the sources very clearly state (with bolded emphasis) "sex," "biological sex," "female," "biology," "biological differences," and "bodies," is nonsense. The only one who has tried to interpret the sources in ways they don't state (such as with your "What do they mean by 'based on sex'?" philosophy, which Crossroads1 addressed you on here and here) is you. And as for "Nor does 'gender' have to mean either sex assignment or gender roles or gender identity," those are the three meanings of "gender" outside of grammatical gender, as made clear by numerous reliable sources. Hardly ever is "gender expression" included. And outside of these meanings, what else is being referred to? To state that something else is being referred to is pure speculation and silliness since reliable sources, outside of talk of grammatical gender, use "gender" to mean those three things. I'm not interested in an editor's view of gender as "socially-constructed characteristics" in some vague way. Really, I can't help but think you are trolling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

All I am saying about the WHO is that when they say "gender" they mean gender and when they say "sex" they mean sex. Perhaps we can agree on that? And please don't start on ASPERSIONS when I have done nothing but assume good faith throughout this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not all you were saying. I can only sigh at the rest. Best for us both to move on yet again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

And as for the WHO, they distinguish between sex and gender in a source specifically meant to distinguish them, but even they use "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence" to mean the same thing, like most other reliable sources usually do. Sometimes "sex and gender-based violence" will be used by sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

And we apparently differ in that to you the primary meaning in all cases is "sex-based", whereas to me the primary signification depends on the context. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I never said that the primary meaning in all cases is "sex-based." What I have stated is that a significant or primary reason that women face discrimination and/or violence is due to their sex/biology. What I have relayed is that I see far more sources stating that women face discrimination and violence due to "sex," "female," "biology" and "bodies" than due to gender roles. I've already made it clear to you with this source that "the term gender-based violence is often used interchangeably with the term violence against women and sexual and gender-based violence." I could point to various reliable sources that state the same thing or similar, varying only by using "usually" or "typically" in place of "often," or "sex-based violence" in place of "sexual and gender-based violence," but I see no need. There are sources that distinguish between "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence," like this 2015 "Invitation to Peace Studies" source, from Oxford University Press, pages 72-73, emphasizing the significant ways that women are subjected to violence based on their sex, but most sources do not distinguish. And since we've discussed "based on sex" and the meaning of sex so much, I find it fitting to quote the following from the source: "Sex-based violence is physical or mental harm directed at people because of their biological appearance -- or assumed appearance -- as either female or male. 'Sex' is a biological concept in this phrase and refers to physiological differences between females and males. Sex-based violence is sometimes directed at males but much more often at females (Geneva Declaration 2011). Because of their biological sex-based characteristics, females are aborted, beaten, neglected, starved, raped, denied freedoms and rights, and killed by their families, male friends, and communities. Girls and women are also often the victims of sex-based violence during wars and insurrections and then again, once hostilities subside, when they are more often than males held responsible for the healing of their families and communities that mostly male combatants have damaged." Interesting that when the source defines "gender-based violence," it doesn't attribute all of that due to the reasons for gender-based violence. One can say that it would be redundant for the source to address all of that again, especially since it notes that sex-based violence and gender-based violence often overlap, but the source addresses a number of discrimination and violence aspects I attributed to girls and women's physical sex, and it also states that these things are due to physical sex. The source also touches on female infanticide (like I did) and intimate partner violence in relation to biology/physical strength (like I did). Yeah, the source notes that sex and gender are both aspects when it comes to violence against women, but I never disputed that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"'Sex' is a biological concept" is a disputed claim. For example, Judith Butler seems to believe that the way we divide the two common sexes as a biological thing is itself a result of social power. This isn't as an unreasonable an idea as it seems, if you think about it. We define biological sex according to six factors (side note: Pyxis, some of your comments above seem overly focused on what's called chromosomal sex, but it's more complicated than that), and some of those factors come with rather arbitrary cutoffs for something that the public assumes is very objective. But the fact that modern medicine uses these six was determined by the state of technology and knowledge at the time the definition was written (which means that this definition is rooted in society, not pure biology), and the definition will probably be different a hundred years from now (which means that the current definition is probably not the One True™ Definition – just the one we've collectively agreed to use for many purposes). In other words, the current definition of a "biological adult female human" is just as "socially constructed" as the non-biological definitions of a "woman".

Also, while I'm posting anyway: To User:Bilorv and the other active editors in this discussion, please read WP:LISTGAP, especially the parts that talk about what to not do. It doesn't come up often (because most discussions aren't so long and complicated), but it's ultimately helpful if the more experienced editors learn the right way to manage our indenting mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That some social and/or gender theorists call biological sex a social construct is something I mentioned in the "Continued discussion" section with my "23:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)" post. The "Invitation to Peace Studies" source even uses the word concept, which many or rather most people would disagree with. And some aspects of sex, such as the chromosomal aspect, do get more weight in the literature than other aspects. Our Sexual differentiation in humans article shows this. And our sex determination system? It is called the XY sex-determination system. So it's no surprise that society focuses more on the chromosomal aspect when speaking of biology in relation to sex beyond physical appearance. If we look at the Sex differences in human physiology article, it of course goes into a lot more than the chromosomal aspect. But our sex-determination system does start with the chromosomal aspect, which is why the Sex differences in human physiology article starts with that. That some social and/or gender theorists call biological sex a social construct doesn't mean that biological sex is disputed in any real way. It's certainly not WP:Due enough to put into our biological and anatomy articles (except for maybe a piece in the Sex article if we were to add a "Society and culture" section to that article). This is, after all, why, at WP:Med last year, you stated, "Given the number of times we've encountered new trans* editors who want to add personal self-perception or hypothesized neurological differences as a factor used to determine biological (i.e., not psychological or social) sex/intersex status (i.e., not gender), it might not be a bad idea to have two or three strong sources behind that statement." By the way, regarding the "In humans, biological sex is determined by" text, you added "by five factors present at birth," not six. I'm wondering what you are referring to by "six." When it comes to the "biological sex is socially-constructed" view, it belongs in the Gender article, where it is. It's mentioned in the Sex and gender distinction article. It's mentioned in a few other articles where appropriate. I see no valid reason for the "Biology and sex" section of the Woman article to go off on a tangent about social and/or gender theorists conceptualizing biological sex as a social construct. I have no issue, however, with including Judith Butler's views or other scholarly views in a section about views on what a woman or womanhood is. And, really, people can call biological sex a social construct as much as they want to, simply because society, for example, gave the reality of biological differences between males and females (which applies to more than just humans) a name, but it's a biological reality that girls and women have to deal with throughout their lives in terms of discrimination, fear (such as afraid to go jogging alone at night because they might be overpowered and harmed by a man), and all of the things that the "Invitation to Peace Studies" source states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the "biological reality that girls and women have to deal with throughout their lives in terms of discrimination, fear (such as afraid to go jogging alone at night because they might be overpowered and harmed by a man)" - biological realities associated with anatomical sex undoubtedly exist, but I am aware of any recent, reliable source that attributes either discrimination or the fear of violence from the perspective of women and girls to "biological reality". Please note that the reliably sourced approaches to stop or prevent violence against women, such as this this Canadian inquiry and this WHO initiative, are invariably social rather than biological in focus, in both their investigation of the issues and their proposed solutions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I already know how you conceptualize things and interpret sources. Either way, there is no reason to address my terminology of "biological reality" when it is quite clear what I was talking about. I've provided enough sources, including the latest "Invitation to Peace Studies" source, to demonstrate that. I've countered your arguments with sources enough. I'm not interested in you challenging a source's meaning when they state "sex," "biological sex," "female," "biology," "biological differences," and "bodies." I am not interested in your philosophies or semantic games. I am interested in sticking to what reliable sources state. I'm not interested in you repeatedly citing Canadian sources to try to prove your points. Of course, sources "are invariably social rather than biological in focus" when it comes to proposed solutions to stop discrimination and violence against women. What would a biological solution be? To castrate men? Lobotomize them? Of course not. Castration is used in the case of some sex offenders, but that is obviously after the crime has been committed, and it cannot be applied to the male sex as a whole, and certainly not before they've committed any crime. Behavioral interventions exist, but so many of those are also focused on men who have already committed crimes. Solutions to stop discrimination and violence against women start with education and then move into other matters. But as for investigation of the issues? Sources also look into girls and women facing discrimination and violence based on their sex. And I've proven that times over. It's not about "Oh, let's see if that male's biology caused him to act that way." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly there is what you are convinced the sources mean, and then there is the quite different thing that they actually say. And it is equally clear that you haven't read either of the (very recent) RS I just provided. So let's leave that issue there.

Also, I never once challenged 'a source's meaning when they state "sex," "biological sex," "female," "biology," "biological differences," and "bodies."' But when they place such language alongside a discussion of gender power relations, for example, I take these statements as equally significant unless the source gives priority to anatomical sex. Which the recent sources - including the ones you have cited - very rarely do. Sigh. At least make the effort not to put words in my mouth, please.

Finally, to use the 'Peace Studies' piece as an example, from the way you have quoted it above a reader would be surprised to learn that it dedicates more paragraphs to defining and describing gender-based than sex-based violence, that it goes out of its way not to derive the former from the latter, and that it insists on a parallel recognition of both as it analyzes forms of violence and discrimination against women. This source may well seem like an outlier to you, but it does offer a clear example of the difference I noted above between what you find significant in a source and what a plain reading of the same source actually indicates.Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out, however, that after that the book just discusses women without needing to say XYZ is because of their sex and ABC is because of their gender. Crossroads1 (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Newimpartial. The "Clearly there is what you are convinced the sources mean, and then there is the quite different thing that they actually say." aspect applies to you. Crossroads1 and I have already been over this. When the sources state "sex," "biological sex," "female," "biology," "biological differences," and "bodies," you cannot then take that to mean or state that those words are about gender roles or gender in some undefined way. You cannot state that sources are not relaying that women face discrimination and violence based on their sex when the sources, like the "Invitation to Peace Studies" source, clearly state that. You cannot go on your "Are those two little words taken to mean 'derived from', or 'influenced by', or 'signified by', or 'paradigmatically referencing', or something else?" philosophizing. Well, you can, but you are wrong to do so. On Wikipedia, we go by what the sources state. Period. Your "those two little words" piece is just one example of you indeed challenging a source's meaning when they state "sex," "biological sex," "female," "biology," "biological differences," and "bodies." Nowhere did I state that a few of the sources I listed are not also about the impact of gendered aspects; in fact, I pointed to gendered aspects in that collapse box. The point of those sources is to show that women face discrimination and violence based on their sex and the extent of it, and just how much it is the focus. You went on about "gender-based violence" rather than "sex-based violence," making it seem as though "sex-based violence" is usually distinguished from "gender-based violence" and as though the latter is more so issue, and as though the former doesn't come before the latter. And WhatamIdoing asked, "'Flyer, what makes you say that women getting paid less than men, or being told whether their hemlines are at an acceptable length, or that women don't need to go to school, or that they shouldn't be plumbers, is about their sex and not about their (perceived) gender? I provided sources. I never said that gendered aspects are not a factor; I keep stating this, and yet you keep acting otherwise. And we've already been over the "discussion of gender power relations" aspect. A number of the sources I provided and various others are clear that those power dynamics wouldn't be there without the sex of those female people. If it were not for their sex, all of what follows would not be happening. There is no getting around that, no matter how much you want to negate the importance of sex or separate it from gender roles as if there is any real separation. Your need to separate the two is something I can only imagine as your need to make it seem as though cisgender women and trans women equally face the same issues. They don't. Cisgender women do not face nearly as much discrimination and violence based on their gender identity as trans women do; you'll just have to accept that.

You keep going on about about "your very recent" reliable sources or other "very recent" reliable sources when not providing any, or providing the same Canadian source or some other sources that don't align with what you are stating. A number of the sources I provided either do give priority to sex over gender (whatever "gender" is supposed to mean, given its different meanings), or (to repeat) they are very clear that the gendered aspects wouldn't be happening without the sex of these women. For most of those sources, I read more than just a few pages. And I have a few of those books in my home; it was just a matter of locating them on Google Books. But I'm not surprised about you interpreting sources to your liking or ignoring sources. One can see that in the big "Definition of trans woman" debate, you repeatedly ignored the fact that authoritative sources like the American Psychological Association define trans women as "People who were assigned male, but identify and live as female and alter or wish to alter their bodies through medical intervention to more closely resemble their gender identity are known as transsexual women or transwomen (also known as male-to-female or MTF)." And words in your mouth, you say, when you have tried to spin your "interpret the sources to my liking" actions around on me? Funny.

You stated, "Finally, to use the 'Peace Studies' piece as an example, from the way you have quoted it above a reader would be surprised to learn that it dedicates more paragraphs to defining and describing gender-based than sex-based violence [...], and that it insists on a parallel recognition of both as it analyzes forms of violence and discrimination against women." Unless readers are not familiar with Peace Studies, and that the book, in its "About this book" section, states, "Invitation to Peace Studies is the first textbook in the field to emphasize 21st-century topics and the latest empirical research, as well as the first to prominently apply a gender perspective to the topics of peace, war, and violence.", they wouldn't be surprised. Its focus is to look at the matter from a gender-based perspective, and it distinguishes that from a sex-based perspective, when, as I've already noted, the vast majority of sources do not distinguish "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence." In that regard, it is an outlier. It, however, is not an outlier when it comes to its statement that "Because of their biological sex-based characteristics, females are aborted, beaten, neglected, starved, raped, denied freedoms and rights, and killed by their families, male friends, and communities." It is not an outlier when it goes on about how girls and women are discriminated against based on their sex. Your "not to derive the former from the latter" argument is as flawed as it ever was. Sources state that gender roles are based on sex -- given to people because of their sex and what is expected of them because of their sex. Sources state that discrimination, gender inequality and violence with regard to girls and women follow as a result. It starts with their sex. Get over it. And I already stated that it's "Interesting that when the 'Invitation to Peace Studies' source defines 'gender-based violence,' it doesn't attribute all of that due to the reasons for gender-based violence. One can say that it would be redundant for the source to address all of that again, especially since it notes that sex-based violence and gender-based violence often overlap, but the source addresses a number of discrimination and violence aspects I attributed to girls and women's physical sex, and it also states that these things are due to physical sex. The source also touches on female infanticide (like I did) and intimate partner violence in relation to biology/physical strength (like I did). Yeah, the source notes that sex and gender are both aspects when it comes to violence against women, but I never disputed that." It is also interesting that you take the source to support your viewpoint when the source clearly disputes what you were stating about "not based on sex."

I would love to "just leave [all of this discussion]" with you alone, but you keep coming back to comment, even when I'm not replying to you, as though you like going in circles and as though anything productive is going to come out of the two of us discussing these matters. The last few days of us discussing indicate that there is no longer a point of us discussing these matters with each other any further. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer 22 Reborn, for illustrating your preferred approach by which selective reading allows your conclusions based on each text to extend well beyond what the rest actually states. You continue to insist that gender-based violence is "based on sex" when reliable sources - Peace studies, Status of Women Canada and the WHO for three - describe it as an additional, albeit connected, phenomenon. Recognizing that anatomical sex is a factor in violence against women - as we all do - does not mean that it is the primary factor compared to, say, gender power dynamics, as you have repeatedly insisted. The meaning you have repeatedly insisted on - that the primary focus of discrimination and violence is on assigned sex rather than gender - is simply not backed up by the plain meaning stated by your own provided sources, which are much more plural or judicious in their explanations. Meanwhile, you are attributing to me a desire to equate the issues faced by cis and Trans women - offering no evidence for this because there isn't any, as this is not in any way my position - and dredging up my preference for "Trans women are women who..." sources over "Trans women are people who..." sources as if the APA's latest word should be followed verbatim and as if language in this area were not evolving to follow newer norms about gender identity. Given your own tendentious readings, whatever selectivity in sources I may have shown in that previous discussion with Betty Logan does not seem to me to be particularly damming. YMMV, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Illustrating your preferred approach by which selective reading allows your conclusions based on each text to extend well beyond what the rest actually states." Talking about yourself again, I see. I also see that you are desperate for the the last word. What I have stated is supported by reliable sources, and emphasized in bold. You state that I "continue to insist that gender-based violence is 'based on sex." I've been clear about my points, such as the fact that the terms "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence" are typically used interchangeably (to, yes, mean the same thing) and that one cannot divorce gendered aspects from sex in the way you have repeatedly tried to do. I'm not interested in your interpretations of what I've stated or your other odd spins. I brought up the APA because you like to try to cite sources as authoritative, like the Canadian source you keep citing. But when an actual authoritative source is put in front of you, you ignore what it states because it doesn't fit your POV. When sources focus on "sex," "biological sex," "female," "biology," "biological differences," and "bodies," you put odd spins on it or go into some unwarranted philosophizing. One philosophizing example is right there above; I linked to it in my "14:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)" post. And, like me, Crossroads1 was clear about some of the absurdity of your philosophizing. You just like arguing in circles. I understand now. Since you like arguing in circles so much, I repeat: I already know how you conceptualize things and interpret sources. [...] I've provided enough sources, including the latest 'Invitation to Peace Studies' source, to demonstrate that. I've countered your arguments with sources enough. I'm not interested in you challenging a source's meaning when they state 'sex,' 'biological sex,' 'female,' 'biology,' 'biological differences,' and 'bodies.' I am not interested in your philosophies or semantic games. I am interested in sticking to what reliable sources state. I'm not interested in you repeatedly citing Canadian sources to try to prove your points." Move on. Do stop taking the time to try to debate me; you are out of your element. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

One illustrative factual point: I "keep citing" three different Canadian sources, as well as Australian, UK, ans US statistical agencies, the Peace Studies piece and two from among the many possible WHO sources.

If you were to follow my links, you would see that I have offered three different, unrelated Canadian RS from three different authorities independent of partisanship. But then, you seem not to have followed those links, preferring to repeat your already-formed opinions in the form of a wall of text. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You say all of that; I see otherwise. Your go-to has been the Canadian source. And you keep citing it and a few other sources in ways that do not support your arguments. The Canadian source, as I and others have pointed out to you, can only apply to Canada. I looked at the sources you cited. Let's not pretend that you did not keep citing the same Canadian source over and over again, and then a few other sources later. You don't keep citing the "Invitation to Peace Studies" source. And even if you did, like I stated, it very clearly goes against your "not based on sex" arguments with regard to things I attributed to being due to the sex of the person. And before you get into your "it also talks about gender" argument, I never disputed that; I mentioned it before you did. The WHO, an organization I am thoroughly familiar with, in part due to my work on domestic violence and intimate partner violence topics (including on Wikipedia), is clear in a number of its publications that a primary reason that girls and women face discrimination and violence is due to their sex (physical sex). From pre-birth, to birth, to throughout their lives. That it says "rooted in gender inequality" with regard to violence against women does not negate that. It is not like gender inequality is completely, always, or mostly divorced from sex. And, in fact, the WHO talks about how the two are intertwined. Like I stated before, it starts with the girl's sex. I'm not sure what you are hoping for by continuing to drag out this discussion. It's clear we disagree and will not be seeing eye to eye. It is time that we both move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Assuming the RfC decides to retain the current lede (or expand it) I'm hoping work can then begin on a section in the article on how Woman relates to Transwoman (in the gender section I guess). Have just re-read the article and there is only a single line on the subject in terminology ("Trans women are those whose sex assignment at birth was male,[1]") and nothing in gender. It doesn't have to be much, as the section can re-driect to the main Transwoman article, but if it's going to stay in the lede surely an expansion is required. Hell, we should have the section even if we removed the reference from the lede. Incidently the wording in terminology seems a better fit for the lede, it includes the concept without either accepting/rejecting the concept of "Transwoman are Woman" (the driving force, one way or another for alot of people) while not contradicting the opening sentence. Although I think that line for the lede was rejected previously and the current one remains by default.User:95.150.80.152 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The lede now does use that line as of typing as it has been reverted to the wording before the recent discussion began.

User:95.150.80.152 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The end?

Per WP:RFCEND, I would be interested in officially ending/withdrawing the RfC. But, before I do that, I wanted to summarize a series of points that it seems we all pretty much agree on. Hopefully we will be able to wrap this up.

Having been part of this discussion throughout, I feel there is consensus on the following points:

1. The lead should continue to define women as female.

2. The lead should continue to mention trans and intersex women, either in one combined sentence or two separate ones.

3. The lead should be expanded to three or four paragraphs to better summarize the article.

4. The Terminology section should have information added about different meanings of womanhood, specifically as this relates to the sex/gender distinction. Special care will need to be exercised regarding due weight.

5. The rest of the article should refer simply to 'women', leaving the definitions to the Terminology section only (and the lead, briefly, only as already mentioned here). Some disagreement here still, but it was not mentioned in the RfC, and this can be discussed later when we have something specific in mind.

Unless I hear a cogent argument that we do not have consensus on these points and we need more input, I will remove the RfC tag soon. This is not at all meant to be a final word; as editors eventually work on making these changes, there will be discussion then, but hopefully centered around specific proposed wordings, not major philosophical and structural issues. Crossroads1 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC) updated Crossroads1 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I support shifting the focus of this discussion to improving the article, and think you lay out a reasonable approach. However, if you encounter disagreement, I would not treat the above points as if they have the weight of consensus (ie, as if they were the findings of an uninvolved editor who closed the RFC).--Trystan (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the ==Terminology== section needs a thorough re-work, and possibly a different title.

I am not convinced that definitions need to be quarantined there. Very few people read whole articles, especially when they're as long as this one. Definitions should be supplied where the reader needs them, as a matter of good writing and good educational practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitions should be "quarantined" as you say because that is what RS do, including the ones being debated here. They spend some time about sex vs. gender, but having done so, then just talk about "women", without compulsively re-defining the term. To do otherwise is bad writing. Crossroads1 (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Crossroads1. And I don't think we should have both a "Terminology" section and a "Definitions" section. "Terminology" might also be preferable to "Definitions" for those who might question presenting scholars' views on what a woman or womanhood is as definitions. Unless necessary, I don't agree with having definitions scattered about. Of course, the definition for sex-related illnesses should be in the "Health" section. Definitions of/views on what a woman or womanhood is should be in one section, however, just like definitions of the topic (what the article's title is about) are regulated to one section for all other Wikipedia articles that have a Definitions section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree, it should stay called "terminology." And I want to emphasize that just because some philosopher defines woman in some avant-garde way, that does not mean it will warrant mention there. It will need to be shown that it is commonly used. What is probably warranted is some discussion of sex v. gender and trans and intersex, since many RS do that, but some of the more esoteric ideas mentioned way above probably should not be added. Crossroads1 (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think a “Terminology” and “Definition” section would be quite different things. The current Terminology section seems fine (though I think the last two paragraphs would be better placed in an appropriate substantive subsection). But if the sources warrant, a definition section could also be added. For example, the Marriage article has a good one (with terminology discussed separately in the Etymology section). I don’t think demonstrating that common usage is the right test for inclusion, but rather the level of coverage in reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this summary was compiled in a fair-minded way, and points 1, 2, and 3 sound good. But, like WhatamIdoing, I am a bit dubious about points 4 and 5. I am especially dubious if you mean to say that that trans or intersex women can only be discussed in the Terminology section. In any case I don't think we need to be overly concerned at this point about how exactly the body of the article will be organized. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean that as my point 2 indicates. Crossroads1 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I only see disagreement with point 5 by you and Whatamidoing, not point 4. At any rate, any such addition will need discussion and RS of its own, but this one I think is basically done. Crossroads1 (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that definitions should not be quarantined in any single section because they're needed throughout the article. If we have a section on trans women, or intersex women, or older women, or younger women, or women's gender roles, or women's work, or any of the other many topics, then those definitions should go in, or be repeated in, those sections. The ===Violence against women=== section currently opens with a definition, and that's much better than skipping it or telling people to please scroll up six sections if they want a definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

A "Definitions" section would be about the word/concept "woman," just like the "Etymology" and "Terminology" sections in the article are about the word woman, not any and every word related to this topic. Like I stated above, definitions of the topic (what the article's title is about) are regulated to one section for all Wikipedia articles that have a Definitions section. The "Violence against women" section begins with a definition that is specifically about violence against women. Yes, that definition is more appropriate there than in a "Definitions" section. No one suggested or implied that we put all definitions pertaining to any aspect of the topic (woman) in one section. And (looking at this and this) I don't see what definition we'd give for "young woman" or "younger women," or (looking at this and this) "old woman" or "older women," or why the material couldn't just go in the "Terminology" section, or why we'd need a "Younger women" or "Older women" section. An "Aging" section? Yes, that would be fitting; it could go in the "Health" section or be a subsection of that section. For those who might say that aging concerns more than health and that we might want to cover age-related social differences between older and younger women, then the section could be its own section and titled "Age-related differences" or something similar. I still don't see that we need both a "Terminology" and "Definitions" section. Given the overlap, it would be better to title the section "Terminology and definitions." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Closing

@Crossroads1: by removing the RfC tag and declaring what you feel the consensus is, I think you'd really be violating the spirit of WP:INVOLVED, as you started the RfC and commented in it. I'm also not sure the discussion has been so clear-cut that we can remove the RfC tag so soon. I think we'd encounter less argument over the same points in future if we let the RfC run its course so that an uninvolved closer can officially declare consensus. There's no deadline. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I think this discussion is beating a horse skeleton at this point. The latest discussion isn't even about the lead, which is what the RfC was actually about. Plus I admit my questions were confusingly worded. Yeah, there's no deadline, but why should we waste more time on this discussion? Some editor can propose or make a specific change and if that needs discussion, then we'll discuss it. I don't think we need to ask an uninvolved closer to spend a lot of time reading all this, as we largely agree that we agree on the lead, which is what this was about. Other, later changes will need specific discussion of their own. We don't need some sort of ruling on that hypothetical, nebulous stuff now because consensus can change. Crossroads1 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC) edited Crossroads1 (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Getting a clearer consensus is not wasting time. There have been opposing !votes in the RfC and different opinions held by different people. It's standard practice for an uninvolved closer to assess consensus for good reason. Your last two sentences are a complete non sequitur. We don't need discussion for all changes but we do need discussion to override an existing consensus. Obviously consensus could change in the future and that is completely irrelevant. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It is wasting time because it is talk about vague hypotheticals. I'm not sure why opposing votes is relevant since people will not all come to have the same opinion. I said my last two sentences because you seem to be hoping for some sort of ruling on the article body to guide us down the line. Besides the RfC is about the lead, so you may not get one anyway. According to WP:RFCEND, an RfC can end in 5 ways, the first one being withdrawal by the nominator. Please note that I have crossed out point 5 of my comment above. Crossroads1 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv, the WP:RFC rules explicitly allow the person who starts an RFC to end it. The theory is that the RFC is their question, and one the person asking the question has an answer, that's all that's needed. RFCs are not normally intended to produce binding decisions on content, because Wikipedia:Consensus can change at any time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Expanding the lead

Crossroads1, Bilorv. I think that the RfC has relieved some pretty good support for expanding the lede so that the trans/intersex wording doesn't take up so much such a relatively large amount of the wording of the lede. I've made a start on this, but it could be expanded and/or clarified further if you guys could provide some input. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Overall I like it. I would combine the giving birth sentence from the first paragraph, the new 2nd paragraph, and the info on trans/intersex women into one paragraph. I would get rid of the phrase "female human" from the 2nd paragraph and replace with "woman" (adjusted for proper grammar). Finally I would delete the phrase "gender based" from the sentence on violence, given the discussion we've had here and the fact it is not strictly necessary. I cannot make these changes as I do not have 500 edits yet (closer to 280). Crossroads1 (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The current lead has expanded in a solid fashion. As for this, the facial hair wording could be improved. Lack of facial hair is a characteristic of women, and the vast majority of women prefer to have no facial hair; this is why even many trans women are bewildered by Alex Drummond sporting a beard. Who is Alex Drummond? See this and this. In the Facial hair article, we state that facial hair is typically a secondary sex characteristic of human males. We also state that "Women are also capable of developing facial hair, especially after menopause, though typically significantly less than men." The word lack doesn't always equate to absence. Pyxis Solitary, since you removed the facial hair aspect, any thoughts? SlimVirgin, good to see you. Since you recently edited the lead, any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, Crossroads1, as you may know, you can ask an admin at WP:Requests for page protection to lift protection of this article so that you can edit it. El C might lift protection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not inclined to reduce the protection at this time, but Crossroads1, you are now an extended-confirmed user. Happy editing! El_C 18:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, El_C. Yeah, that's better in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, thanks for the ping. For that sentence, we could say something like "Women are typically shorter than men, with wider hips and significantly less facial and other body hair." SarahSV ^(talk) 19:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good. I'd prefer the whole sentence to be worded as follows, though: "Women are typically shorter than men, have wider hips, and significantly less facial and other body hair." I state this because I'm not feeling the "with" part as though "typically shorter than men," and "hips," and "significantly less facial and other body hair" automatically go hand in hand. I know it's typical, but still. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem there is that the final part of the sentence is missing a verb, so it's unbalanced. To make it work, we'd have to say "and have wider hips and significantly less ...". There are other differences at Sex differences in human physiology that we could summarize in that sentence. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"have significantly less facial and other body hair" is more accurate. Some females have "moustaches", some have hair on the sides of their face where males have sideburns, and many elderly gals pluck their chins because many females start to go to hell in a hand basket after menopause. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's overstating things, a little, to say that women are "typically shorter than men". To me that implies that it would be very unusual for a woman to be taller than a man. Which is why I think it should be changed to "on average". Note that the average height of a woman from the Netherlands is 5'6", which means if she visited Nepal she would be taller than the average man at 5'4". WanderingWanda (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlap with men on the matter of height, but a lot less with waist to hip ratio and essentially none with facial and body hair. I suggest my last edit as a compromise. Or, we could eliminate reference to height entirely. Crossroads1 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding facial hair, women aren't typically thought of as having facial hair. Their vellus hair is not termed facial hair, except for when sources state that all women have fine, light hair covering their faces and bodies and then go into the fact that some women have coarser hair on their faces and/or bodies and what causes this (hormones and/or genetics) and the social stigma attached. Hair on the sides of their faces where males have sideburns is not usually termed facial hair either. When the term facial hair is used, it's usually about men (and teenage boys). We see this in the Facial hair article. When the term is used in the context of women, it's almost always about women having excessive facial hair or stray facial hairs. Google shows this. We could change the "and have significantly less facial and other body hair" text to "have significantly less body hair, and little to no facial hair," given that what little facial hair women have, they typically get rid of. But there are many men who have little to no facial hair as well due to shaving. So maybe "significantly less," since it's comparing women to men, is the better text.

That women are typically shorter than men is stated in various biology and anatomical books, and media sources as well. It's a fact, and we state it on Wikipedia. Even in places where women are typically taller than women in the United States, the men in those places are also typically taller than men in the United States and the women in their homelands. But "on average," a synonym for "typically," works as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Exact working of sentence regarding Trans Woman

"There are also trans women (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity)" was changed to "Some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity)"

I think the former was the better worded version and despite the claim that is was just a grammar change (over the use of also) it is actually a significant change. I can't edit myself (due to protections) so wanted to raise it here.

BTW I welcome the expaned and improved lede. Well done.

User:95.150.80.152 (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

With the current expanded version of the lead, where this sentence is now at the start of a paragraph and the previous paragraph talks about women throughout history, what would the "also" refer to? Previously it made sense but it now just doesn't make grammatical sense to say "also" in reference to, at best, something mentioned three paragraphs ago. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 01:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Bilorv, I don't see any need to change the current wording. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Then lets just remove "also". That removes the grammatical issue. User:95.150.80.152 (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense, but I don't see the advantage. Why is this a significant change and in what way is your preferred version better? — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 01:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. There is no particular advantage except the "original" wording (the wording before the edit) should be retained unless there is reason to change it. The significant change is that "There are Trans Woman" and "Some Woman are Trans" have different implications in general and in regard to the defintion of woman used at rhe head of the article/lede. Specifically the latter is not a definitve statement that Trans Woman are Woman while the latter is. They are different statements. Hope that makes sense. User:95.150.80.152 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

the "original" wording (the wording before the edit) should be retained unless there is reason to change it — No such rule exists in Wikipedia, except sometimes as a temporary measure during an edit war. There's no bias towards existing content unless it has consensus. I've made thousands of similar small wording changes and almost none of them require any sort of discussion at all. When you say "the latter is not a definitive statement that trans women are women", I would dispute this—by mentioning them on a page called Woman we're inherently implying that they are women, and the other wording still reads to me as the same statement, but less eloquent—but even if I took it as true, this is what the majority of reliable sources say. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I never claimed there was such a rule. Using it on the page may imply they are but using the definition in the opening sentence flat out states they are not (that sentence does not say "some/most woman are adult women females" for example). I don't see how "Some..." is more elegant than "There are...". They are different statements, not different wordings for the same statement. I don't have enough knowledge to dispute if most relaibale sources says "Transwoman are woman" while retaining the key defintion that "Woman = Adult Human Female". User:95.150.80.152 (talk)20:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to know that, per RS, "female" is a gender designation as well as an assigned sex designation. It does not (in all contexts) designate the latter. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The more I read the two versions, the more I see a difference in intention. If "some" is how it's going to stay, then RS is needed to explain what is meant by "some". What is the population percentage of "some"? In fact, what is the percentage for both versions? Pyxis Solitary yak 11:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Here, the word "some" is being used as an existential quantifier, which is a perfectly valid usage. If you want to add percentages, you're more than welcome to do so. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

As written and without RS to verify it, the statement is WP:OR. Whether it's you doing the editing or someone else, when it comes to "facts, allegations, and ideas": Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". Pyxis Solitary yak 10:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• The current (latter) one is more accurate and accordant to reliable sources, as "there are also" cowardly does not explicitly confirm trans and intersex women's womenhood contrary to RS, only appeasing to the fringes that does not believe so and leaving much confusion to readers. I am also for the wording "Woman may also be trans or intersex", and adding prior explanations on cis women would be contextually helpful. As for the "woman = adult human female" mantra more commonly seen in the fringes elsewhere, female refers to gender identity as much as sex, and using "female" when one actually meant XX or anatomy is scientifically illiterate. Academic sources uses "trans female" rather than "trans male" or even "trans-identified male" to refer to trans women. Female human being is fully compatible with regards to trans women here. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 07:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The IP, like various others who have complained (on Wikipedia) about "female" not aligning with "trans woman," are using "female" only in the context of anatomy. In that context, it's not scientifically illiterate since the anatomical literature and most of the biological literature, as seen in our XY sex-determination system, Sexual differentiation in humans and Sex differences in human physiology articles (for just a few examples) do use "female" to mean XX or anatomy. We note exceptions, but the articles generally adhere to the typical. And it's not that those sources are outdated either, as more recent academic anatomy/biology sources report the same. Yes, a number of reliable sources embrace trans women as women and use "female" in relation to them, but it's known from research on transgender identities and transgender struggles (such as transphobia) that society generally hasn't yet embraced trans women as female or even as women. This is why readers and editors will keep stating that "female" doesn't align with "trans woman." In that case, they will keep privileging the anatomy aspect over the gender identity aspect. All we have to do in a wording case such as this, like we've recently done before, is state on the talk page that "female" is not restricted to cisgender girls and women. It's also applied to trans women, although it usually covers cisgender girls and women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

All we have to do in a wording case such as this, like we've recently done before, is state on the talk page that "female" is not restricted to cisgender girls and women. You may be willing to ignore reality, but removing male genitalia and creating faux female genitalia from excised flesh does not surgically change the anatomy that lies beneath, neither does a body sustained on cross-sex hormone therapy. A female is composed of biological components that are not interchangeable, therefore a man can transition into a "woman" and become a transwoman but can never transition into a "female". Words have consequences. Obfuscating reality to favour personal politics has consequences. 5.181.235.181 (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And where did I state or imply that I was referring to any of what you just stated? I clearly distinguished anatomy from gender identity in my post. Favor personal politics, you say? You must have me confused with some other editor. I've been clear about not giving undue weight to trans women in this article and not engaging in undue weight/WP:Advocacy with regard to gender identity at articles like Human penis. And since that 2012 discussion that took place at the Human penis talk page, the literature on the human penis still mainly talks about boys and men, and males, rather than trans women or non-binary people. So that is what our Wikipedia article mainly does. What I am saying now is that going on about "female" not aligning with "trans woman" because trans women are mentioned in the lead is fruitless. Trans women are going to be covered in the article either way. Even saying "there also trans women," which, as noted at the start of the #Proposed edits to lede section, is the wording that was implemented after I suggested it as a compromise, implies that a trans woman is a type of woman. Is "woman" a part of the word "trans woman" or not? And the literature has long used the wording "male-to-female" to describe trans women (although some consider "male-to-female" insensitive or outdated now). The lead used to state "With regard to gender, a woman may also be a person whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity." As the 2018 discussion I linked to shows, there was an objection, the matter was taken to the talk page, different wording options were proposed and we eventually went with the "there also trans women" wording. Currently, the Terminology section says, "Trans women are those whose sex assignment at birth was male, while intersex women are those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female." Maybe you'd rather use that wording for the lead. Either way, you are going to need consensus to change the current wording in the lead. And this discussion currently shows no sign of consensus forming to change trans women being called women. Furthermore, the line clearly states "those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity." It doesn't call them female. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, I believe that the logged-out editor was responding to Tsumikiria, not to you.

I think that Tsumikiria's suggestion of saying that women may also be trans or intersex might be better than what we have now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the IP quoted me. As seen in the archived "Wording" discussion, I suggested, "A woman may also be a trans woman (someone whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity), or an intersex woman (someone with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." We didn't go with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)