Talk:Woman/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

On the definition of woman

I added some new sentences today (the one in the middle has been in the article since 2006):

There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations. For example, some definitions consider age a factor in the definition, and other definitions do not. The word woman can be used generally, to mean any female human, or specifically, to mean an adult female human as contrasted with girl. When a distinction between women and girls is made, it may be based upon chronological age, biological maturity, or social situations. In the sentence "That girl's twin sister is a married woman", two people of the same chronological age are described using different words because of their different social situations.

Flyer has reverted it.

I assume that nobody disagrees with this additional explanation on the facts: different sources have different definitions. (If you do think there is one single "correct" definition, then you need to remove the middle sentence, too, since it's clear evidence that there are at least two definitions in common use. Also, you will need to burn your dictionary. Merriam–Webster, for example, gives six different definitions.)

I think this article needs to acknowledge that multiple definitions exist. (I don't think it should anoint any definition as the One True™ Definition.) What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted and included a follow-up note here. The issue is WP:Due and WP:In-text attribution. How is "woman" usually defined? We don't begin this article by stating, "There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations." Instead (with the exception of currently not stating "adult human female" but rather "a female human being"), we begin by defining it the way it is defined in various reliable sources. It is the definition of "woman" given over and over again in reliable sources. That is why we state that in Wikipedia's voice. As for the assertion that "There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations"? Who is stating this? Attribute it via in-text. It certainly is not the typical definition of "woman." The section could state that "Dictionaries and encyclopedias [or whatever else] define 'woman' as [so and so]." And then note that feminists, philosophers and others have pondered what a woman is and/or have given different definitions. But presenting their viewpoints in Wikipedia's voice? That's a no for me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear, I was focused on your "There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations." sentence. As for Merriam–Webster giving six different definitions? Dictionaries almost always have more than one definition/sense of a word. And they tend to put the primary definition first. We can see the first definition that Merriam–Webster gives for "woman." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that we don't begin this article with that statement. That's why I put it in the middle of a section, instead of in the lead.
• I don't think that we need in-text attribution for this. Who, exactly, would you attribute it to? Does any reliable source say that there is only one single, universal definition of woman? I've never seen one that did. I provided one source with a particularly direct quotation, because I think this article ought to have a better ratio of citations to sentences, but there are many such sources.
• NB that no definition was provided. A definition would want in-text attribution, e.g., "Dictionaries define it this way" or "This philosopher defined it that way". The cited sentence, however, only states that multiple definitions exist.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that dictionaries define "woman" basically all the same way (and note that Merriam-Webster's other definitions are obviously derivatives of the primary one), and that vast numbers of reliable sources in medicine and other fields implicitly use the obvious definition, means we should not have unattributed philosophizing. In fact, attribution is needed to avoid contradiction. Also, in context, what other definitions does the author talk about? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if you personally define woman as "an adult female of the human species", that's not enough. We then need to ask, e.g., how you define adult. Is a married 17-year-old an adult? In different times and places, laws and cultures have said yes, and laws and cultures have said no. Is an unmarried 20-year-old an adult? Same problem. How about an emancipated minor?

Note that nothing I've mentioned here is has anything to do with any pro-trans or anti-trans point of view. This has to do with whether or not George III married a 17-year-old woman or a 17-year-old girl. Do you believe that there is one, single, universal definition that will let you arrive at the sole correct answer to that question? I don't.

That particular source was arguing for accepting a multiplicity of definitions, and a multiplicity of scales for definitions. The author (a law professor) thinks that there should be space for everyone to develop their own personal definitions plus space for every group to develop their own different, collectively generated definitions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

'An astonishing number of our concepts allow for borderline cases.' from Bogardus who goes on to say:

And, so, the advocate of the traditional definitions of woman and man is free to deny the original premise (7) on the same grounds: perhaps woman and man are defined partly in terms of sex, and perhaps that’s partly why those terms allow for borderline cases. After all, many biological concepts allow for borderline cases. Like the central biological concept life, for example. Think of viruses, or prions. And also fish (think lungfish), eye (think eye-spots), etc. When it comes to our concept woman, female is vague, but so are adult and human. So, if a woman is an adult female human, it should be no surprise that woman allows for borderline cases. That concept plausibly inherits its vagueness from its constituent concepts, all of which are vague. But why think this vagueness is a problem? Biology is shot through with vagueness, after all. There’s no way around it.1"

Maneesh (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

IMO that supports the claim that there are multiple potentially valid definitions. "Perhaps woman and man are defined partly in terms of sex" means "and perhaps they're not, depending upon whom you're asking". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think what Bogardus is saying is that borderline cases are endemic in biology, but the existence of borderline cases does not lead to sensible arguments against clear definitions. WP really ought to (and I think it does) presume the existence of borderline cases for many words and then rely on things like notability to mention if a broderline case is worth mentioning. Of course, borderline cases don't result in meaningless concepts that admit anything, a red super giant star is not a woman. "There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations" seems far too strong a claim here that doesn't acknowledge a set of core concepts that admit borderline cases, and that there is a difference between the core concepts and borderline cases. A reader might then think that there are definitions of 'woman' that admit a red supergiant star to being a woman in some situation. Maneesh (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What the core concepts are is exactly what's in dispute with these conflicting definitions. Some people say that gender identity is the only thing that matters. Other people say that biology has a role (either partial or total). The beliefs that "Gender identity is everything" and "There's a role for biology in this definition" are mutually exclusive. It is not possible to have a single, universal definition that includes both of those beliefs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT would suggest the "adult human female" are the core concepts as it is taken to mean, at least, almost all of biology and medicine and the verified sources associated with those domains. Maneesh (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that biology and medicine have a single definition of woman?

The point here is that we have multiple reliable sources that say that there is no single definition. The existence of multiple definitions does not mean that they are not all equally popular, but it's not really a popularity contest anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the meaning of "woman" in terms of gender roles, mentioned by Crossroads above, the term also refers to female gender identity. This aspect is crucial to the work of demographers, such as Statistics Canada and to academic and applied psychology, such as the American Psychological Association. It is presumably superfluous to insist that the work of demographers and psychologists have made an important contribution to discourse surrounding "woman", as represented in this article and in the mass of reliable, recent sources elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. And that means "no single, universal definition". Statistics Canada is allowed to have their definition, but they are not allowed to invalidate the definition used by others. Fertility rates should be studied according to whoever might get pregnant, which includes some non-binary people and transmen. It would not make sense to base your fertility rate calculations on transwomen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Do you have a reliable source that says that biology and medicine have a single definition of 'woman' - I mean, I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that isn't true. Federal research agencies across any country I am aware use "woman" to mean "adult human female": NIH, CDC, FDA, CIHR...the list is very very very long. This is well-known common language. If you spend any time reading scientific papers and clinical trials, I could not stop counting ones that used "woman" to mean adult human feamle.Maneesh (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not trying to include a sentence that says anything about how biology or medicine define anything, so the WP:ONUS for proving that is certainly not on me. I'm only trying to get a sentence in that says even within the confines of "adult human female", there is a lot of room for different definitions. I've provided multiple sources that directly support a claim that multiple definitions exist. Was Queen Charlotte a "woman" when she was married? Or was she still a girl? If there is only one single definition, then you should be able to answer that question with certainty.

(From Newimpartial's comment, it appears that a federal research agency called Statistics Canada is using gender identity as its primary definition these days. And you might find upon careful inspection that many research studies, such as these, include minors in their definition of "women".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You asked for a reliable source that says that biology and medicine have a single definition of woman, I replied that the overwhelming majority of sources in those domains agree with the notion of 'adult human female'. If you think that is not the case, you'll have to demonstrate that there is a reason to believe that (do you think these recent books have been written in some strange dialect of English?) Statistics Canada still seems to use 'woman' as 'adult female' (note its use under 'sex'). The clinical trials you cite seem to include 16 yro women, that's a vagueness inherent in the concept of an adult. WP seems to do a reasonable job at describing that vagueness and borderline cases of that word, I'm not sure sure there is a terrible need to explain that again in this article.Maneesh (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Maneesh, "Adult female human" can refer either to the sex of a person or to the gender of a person, or both - that phrase does not have a single, unique definition either. The Statistics Canada source I cited earlier, identifies "female" as a value of the classification of gender as well as the classification of sex which means that it means different things in different contexts. Your argument that whenever people say "female human" they are referring to "sex" is, shall we say, unsupported by evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, when it comes to how demographers define it, we can't selectively choose one country's agency as having the One True Definition. Other such agencies' definitions need to be factored in to determine WP:NPOV and WP:Due regarding demography. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

So it's a good thing that demographers in other countries have implemented this same distinction or are working on it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The claim links to a UK civil service site, if one is going to claim that a country is 'working on' self identification of males and females, the UK is probably a bad example. Maneesh (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you actually read the "civil service" link, Maneesh? It quite clearly sets out the distinction between female sex and female gender, including which measures are currently being collected and which are under development, from within the community of demographers at the UK's national statistical agency. I am talking about the work of demographers within their professional expertise, not policy development for "gender self-identification". Try to keep your eye on the ball. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Odd, I don't see any mention of "female gender" in female. Maneesh (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That article doesn't focus on humans, does it? This one does. The concept of "gender" applies only to humans AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Maneesh, the way that you counter seven reliable source that directly state that there are multiple definitions is by producing reliable sources that directly state that there is only one source. If you could find such a source, then we could say, "Alice and Bob say that there are multiple definitions, and Carol says there is only one". But we can say "Every single reliable source we've found on this subject says there are multiple definitions, but some Wikipedia editor says there's only one that actually matters". Doing that would be WP:NOR violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not the way I would counter assertions like yours. The assertion seems to be merely that words have multiple definitions. This is true for words like 'adult', 'human' etc. due to borderline cases (humans in various states of death, women with varying physiological development, countries with different laws etc.). 'Woman' does have multiple definitions since the definition uses words with multiple definitions; writing would become very unclear if this was stated for all these kinds of words in WP articles. If an alternate definition admits a case that really falls outside some subjective threshold of implicit understanding, sure, I can see a case for mentioning that...but I don't see what you are saying as anything other than definitions have borderline cases. Vagueness is a basic part of language and has been long been explored in philosophy ("where does the tail of a snake begin")...you can explore that, but I think WP should focus on clarity and 'common sense' standard that I don't think is difficult to establish by soliciting opinions here.. Maneesh (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The available definitions aren't simply about "borderline" cases. There is at least one definition (which you can read about in ISBN 9780199892631) that defines biological males who self-identify as men as "women" for certain purposes (for example, a man who is subjected to sexual harassment because the perpetrator mistakenly thought he was a woman).

The common-sense standard in 19th-century western Europe was not the common-sense standard in 19th-century Southeast Asia, because the different cultures had different definitions of female. The Western definition was based on anatomy, and the Asian one was based on basically anything except anatomy.

The article should not adopt the "common sense" standard that everyone's understanding is basically the same, because everyone's understanding is not basically the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources about the number of definitions

Multiple definitions exist

Only one correct defintion

"There has been no single definition of woman, but rather a succession of definitions" ISBN 9781317877103 "female gender identity is informed not only be mere biological data, but also by issues such as race, class, language and culture, which makes it impossible to reach a single definition of woman as it comprises a plethora of meanings for different societies." ISBN 9789004365056 (discussing Prof. Teresa de Lauretis's writings) "In her research into women and the law 'that women as women scarcely exist'. Women were defined by age, martial status and blood relations..." ISBN 9781317877103 "The argument that no one single definition of 'woman' can inform feminist theory and practice, that gender identity and loyalty is historically and culturally contingent, requires renewed attention to the options of equality and difference." ISBN 9781474281782 "Gender roles have varied greatly throughout history, however, so to assume a single definition of 'woman' linking these writings is not entirely satisfactory" ISBN 9780231518123 (discussing Japanese literature) "This dispute revolved around the definition of 'Woman' in feminist theory and practice. The cultural feminists argued for an essentialist definition of woman, the poststructuralists rejected the possibility of any definition. Alcoff attempts to define a compromise between these two extremes, arguing for a concept of the subject as a dialectical interaction between the inner world of subjectivity and the outer world of social forces." ISBN 9781135302825 (discussing Linda Alcoff's seminal essay on the subject)

Here are more sources. I have not yet found any reliable source that says there is only one definition (and I have looked). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but in context, what are these other definitions of woman? It does no good to plop on readers some contextless philosophizing about how a woman is a "dialectical interaction" or whatever. Many of these quotes will leave many readers with the impression that the term is meaningless. But if I had to guess, they look to me to be discussing how gender roles differ between cultures. If that is what the sources are about, then simply talk about that. Remember that the social and biomedical sciences seem to have little trouble defining what a woman is; it's just a section of philosophy and kindred small subfields that can't seem to nail down an answer. Everyone else doesn't need to define it because they are implicitly using the dictionary definition. We can of course cover that debate, but we should do so in context and with attribution, and with regard for WP:Due. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that I could give you a comprehensive list, but here's a few:

• You're a woman if you're a biological female (with a line drawn arbitrarily somewhere, based on whichever factors the person chooses).
  • ...past a certain point of biological development (e.g., menstruation)
  • ...past a certain chronological age
  • ...in a certain social situation (e.g., living independently or getting married)
• You're a woman if you're not a biological male. (Human chromosomal sex works this way, and the quotation above indicates that English law took a "male default" approach.)
• You're a woman if that's your gender identity.
• You're a woman if that's your gender expression (e.g., you wear women's clothes).
• You're a woman if that's your social role (e.g., you do women's work).
• You're a woman if you are treated like one by other people (e.g., people who experience gender-based discrimination because other people think they're women).

I have read that feminine gender expression and social role was the definition of (wo)manhood among the Teduray people. There could be no question of medical testing or gender-related surgery in that culture. If you looked like a biological male and grew up to have long hair and to cook the rice, then you simply were a woman, as far as they were concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me you are getting caught up in defining "woman" with regard to the gender and social roles imposed on them. Yes, there is room to talk about that. That's why we have a "Culture and gender roles" section. These roles have a lot to do with how women are treated and viewed. We know that. But women don't get those gender and social roles imposed on them until their sex assignment. And their sex assignment is based on their anatomical appearance. It's because they are of the female sex that they are expected to have certain roles as a girl and later as a woman.

You stated, "You're a woman if you are treated like one by other people (e.g., people who experience gender-based discrimination because other people think they're women)." This ties into your "You're a woman if you're not a biological male.", "You're a woman if that's your gender identity.", and "You're a woman if that's your gender expression (e.g., you wear women's clothes)." bullet points. A person may identify as a woman, but if that person does not visually pass as a woman, that person often will not be treated like a woman and therefore will not get the full experience of what it means to be a woman. At least what cisgender women experience. Trans women have talked about this. Cisgender women have talked about this. It's why there is a socialization debate with regard to what it means to be a woman. Gender expression? It's tied to gender identity (when not forced on a person). Many sources define it as the external manifestation of one's gender identity. GLAAD used to define it that way, and now states that gender expression is the "external manifestations of gender, expressed through a person's name, pronouns, clothing, haircut, behavior, voice, and/or body characteristics." A person may dress in a way that is stereotypically considered "dressing like a woman", but if that person does not visually pass as a woman, that person often will not be treated like a woman and therefore will not get the full experience of what it means to be a woman. At least what cisgender women experience. People may respect her pronouns, but she will be unintentionally misgendered if people do not know her pronouns.

People assume gender, just like my gender is assumed when I answer the phone and talk to a stranger. Because of my voice, they call me ma'am. In public, because of my appearance, they call me ma'am. If a crime is committed, people report the gender they believe that perpetrator to be. That person may identify as non-binary, but no one is going to see that. Non-binary people have talked about being invisible in society because people will see either male or female. With perhaps the exception of the Teduray people you mentioned, no one says "You're a woman if you do women's work." What is women's work is hard to define these days anyway. Cooking used to be women's work, and is still thought of as women's work in some parts of the world (even in the United States when it comes to misogynistic views). And as for adulthood? The age of majority is age 18 in the vast majority of the world.

Are you going to look to have "What is a man?" material in the Man article as well? Whatever the case, I see no need to have this talk page debate. To repeat what I stated above, "The section could state that 'Dictionaries and encyclopedias [or whatever else] define 'woman' as [so and so].' And then note that feminists, philosophers and others have pondered what a woman is and/or have given different definitions." Here on the talk page or via a link to your sandbox, you can propose text to include. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Tweak post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sex assignment generally happens to babies, which is a group of people that I don't think is encompassed in typical definitions of woman. I am not in the habit of congratulating parents on the birth of a new baby woman, and I assume you aren't, either.

If I am "caught up" in anything, it is not about defining woman this way or that way, but in having the article simply state that different definitions exist. Even if you believe that biology is the primary and essential component, there are different valid definitions that focus on biology. A adult female in the eyes of the law is not the same as an adult female in the eyes of an evolutionary biologist. There is no sudden biological change on your 18th birthday.

Unlike your proposal, I don't want to go into as much detail as saying which sources give which definitions. I really just want to say that multiple definitions exist, and give an everyday example that average, non-scholarly people will recognize.

You say that people make assumptions about your gender, which is typical; I'll bet that when you were a little younger, no stranger checked your exact birthdate before deciding whether to refer to you as a woman or a girl. I've never yet heard anyone say something like "These three college women and that college girl" just because one of them wasn't technically old enough to be defined as an adult by the law. The law's definition is not the only definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Your "Sex assignment generally happens to babies, which is a group of people that I don't think is encompassed in typical definitions of woman." argument makes no sense to me since I stated that "women don't get those gender and social roles imposed on them until their sex assignment. And their sex assignment is based on their anatomical appearance. It's because they are of the female sex that they are expected to have certain roles as a girl and later as a woman."

Other than wanting to provide different perspectives on what a woman is, your points are lost on me. I'm not getting caught any further into this debate, which I feel is unnecessary for improving this article. I stand by my previous comments on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe this article would be improved by stating that there are multiple definitions. I've now provided quotations from seven (7) books that directly say that there are multiple definitions. Do you have any doubt that the sentence is verifiable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"For example, some definitions consider age a factor in the definition, and other definitions do not" seems redundant to the (existing) sentence that follows it; I don't see that it adds anything. In turn, the latter two sentences that are proposed don't seem to provide substantially different definitions beyond the one difference that's already noted: they seem to only explain different metrics by which someone comes to be considered, in the words of the one existing sentence, "an adult female human as contrasted with girl". I'm not opposed to expanding that existing sentence to something like ...as contrasted with girl (on the basis of age, maturity, or social factors), but I'm also not sure it's necessary. In turn, the first proposed sentence ("There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations") is not wrong, and I'm not really opposed to adding it, but it seems kind of unnecessary or vacuous (broadly applicable to many words) unless the section is going to specify other "different definitions" (which would need to be due, etc) besides "female of any age" vs "adult female". -sche (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

IMO is more in keeping with typical encyclopedic style to state the general case (there are multiple definitions) than the specific (for example, some definitions take different approaches to chronological age). If we were going to reduce it to a single sentence, it should be the first. However, I think that including both the general and the specific will have more educational value (which is why we're all here, right?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Although the current wording has the advantage of being clear (almost patronisingly so), I agree that it is insufficient in that it doesn't capture the wide debate which is present over the definition of woman among those who study womanhood as a concept. On the other hand, anything which focuses too much on the philosophy may be undue, and may lose sight of the fact that the majority of people would use the definition given. I would support a wording like "A woman is widely defined to be a female human being, although there is much debate over the accuracy of this definition." with a citation to something like [1]. This would be an improvement over the current wording.Wikiditm (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that most of this discussion hasn't largely missed the point. It is certainly true that the vast majority of people understand a "woman" to be "an (adult) female human being", but that doesn't resolve anything, since each element of that definition - adult, female (which can be "female sex" or female gender") and even "human being" (see Sojourner Truth) - is subject to multiple meanings. Newimpartial (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard trans women (and others) say before that they find certain people's use of "adult female human" as if it were exclusionary interesting, because they don't feel it actually excludes them.
I continue to not see anything about the portion of this article which deals with that which needs to be changed at this time. (As an aside, and I would not propose adding this to the article because I think it's fine that the article focuses on humans, it is worth noting that in terms of how speakers actually use the word, woman is not even limited to humans; writers say e.g. two (elves|dwarves|aliens|etc)—a man and a woman—[did whatever].) -sche (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiditm, when you say that "the current wording" is clear, which wording are you talking about? I don't see anything in the article that discusses the definitions of woman at all. Do you see anything that clearly states that there are different definitions of woman? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to the first two sentences.Wikiditm (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

___

References

Section on gender is biased

 ″Originally, starting at a young age, children's occupational aspirations differed according to gender.[53]″

"Originally" is a misleading word. "Originally" could refer to many different points of origin. In hunter-gatherer and nomadic cultures, gender roles were different from post-agricultural society.

 ″Traditionally, middle class women were involved in domestic tasks emphasizing child care." 

"Traditionally middle class" is an oxymoron. The middle class is a relatively recent development, so you need to be clear what "tradition" you are referring to. It would be more accurate to say, "In societies that adopted agriculture, the traditional role of women involved domestic tasks emphasizing child care."

 ″For poorer women, especially working class women, although this often remained an ideal,[specify] economic necessity compelled them to seek employment outside the home. Many of the occupations that were available to them were lower in pay than those available to men.″ 

It's very hard to tell what time period or culture this is referring to. In post-industrial societies, this may be accurate, but it shouldn't be in this article without citation from a trusted source.

 ″As changes in the labor market for women came about, availability of employment changed from only "dirty", long hour factory jobs to "cleaner", more respectable office jobs where more education was demanded.″ 

"Long hour factory jobs" seems to focus on a subsection of the workforce in a very specific time period? This should make clear that it has shifted from talking about traditional roles to roles during the beginning of industrialization.

 ″Women's participation in the U.S. labor force rose from 6% in 1900 to 23% in 1923.″ 

The beginning of the section gave me the impression that it was covering gender roles globally. If this entire section is focused on gender roles in the U.S., then it should make that scope clear in the section title.

 ″These shifts in the labor force led to changes in the attitudes of women at work, allowing for the revolution which resulted in women becoming career and education oriented.″ 

A "revolution" usually refers to political uprisings meant to overthrow a government. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for hyperbole. If you're going to mention the feminist movement, why so vague? "Shifts in the labor force and new technologies led to new opportunities for women and emergence of feminist movements in many parts of the world. As a result, many cultures globally have become more open to women seeking education, careers, and leadership roles."

 ″In the 1970s, many female academics, including scientists, avoided having children. Throughout the 1980s, institutions tried to equalize conditions for men and women in the workplace. Even so, the inequalities at home hampered women's opportunities: professional women were still generally considered responsible for domestic labor and child care, which limited the time and energy they could devote to their careers. Until the early 20th century, U.S. women's colleges required their women faculty members to remain single, on the grounds that a woman could not carry on two full-time professions at once.″ 

Again, this is very narrow in scope, focusing on western society. If this whole section has that scope, then it should say so in the title.

 ″Sexism can be a main concern and barrier for women almost anywhere, though its forms, perception, and gravity vary between societies and social classes.″ 

Finally there is a brief mention that not everybody fits into the mold of western society. But it's so vague. Shouldn't we expand this view if we're really trying to have a full picture of gender roles?

Jeremyagottfried (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the Woman#Culture and gender roles section. All I can really say is that the material directly under that heading does indeed have problems, some of which are already tagged. Feel free to work on it per WP:FIXIT. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Certainly no disagreement from me. It needs work. Newimpartial (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bah, yes, that section does need work. It's also awkward that it begins (with emphasis mine/added) "In more recent history, gender roles have changed greatly."—that's the first sentence in the section on gender roles, no previous sentence in the section has said anything about gender roles in a less recent period, so the comparative isn't intelligible. -sche (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is 'Gender symbol' a subsection of 'Etymology'?

It's not about the etymology... is there not a more sensible place to put that (sub)section? Suggestions welcome...
Separately, how does anyone feel about retitling the 'Terminology' section to 'Terminology and scope'? The section deals at length with the extent to which the scope of woman includes or excludes girls (however defined), trans women, and intersex women, thus I submit that the proposed title might be better (clearer to someone looking over the TOC, etc), though I'm not sure. -sche (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)